Standards of practiceResearch Reporting Standards for Percutaneous Vertebral Augmentation
Section snippets
Population Description
Accurate description of the patient population is essential for several reasons: (i) it enables a reader to determine whether a study is relevant to his or her patient population; (ii) it helps to delineate which patient subsets are likely to benefit from the intervention being described; and (iii) it facilitates meaningful comparison with other studies describing patient cohorts who were treated with the same or different medical, surgical, or interventional therapies. The main indications for
Treatment Description
Radiologic imaging has been a critical part of vertebral augmentation from its inception. Most procedures are performed with use of single-plane or biplane fluoroscopic guidance for needle placement and to monitor bone cement injection. The use of computed tomography (CT) has been described (25, 26) as well as cone-beam C-arm CT (27).
Outcomes Assessment
The goal of vertebral augmentation is to improve patients' quality of life by relieving pain and returning patients to their baseline level of activity before the onset of pain related to a vertebral compression fracture or neoplastic/tumoral destruction of a vertebral body. As a result of the differing underlying disease processes (eg, osteoporosis, malignancy, hemangioma), outcome measures will be different and the follow-up of these patients may be limited by life expectancy. To fully
Comparison Between Treatment Groups
The randomized clinical trial is the criterion standard of clinical research and is the methodology of choice for determining the safety and efficacy of vertebral augmentation treatments and for comparing them with other percutaneous, surgical, and medical therapies (55). However, it is recognized that most studies will be of lesser methodologic rigor as a result of practical reasons such as cost, patient recruitment, and/or ethical considerations. Randomized trials should be performed in
Conclusion
Published studies on vertebral augmentation have been limited by nonstandardized reporting, lack of long-term follow-up, and use of surrogate outcome measures. It is the purpose of these reporting standards to bring greater uniformity to vertebral augmentation research reported in the radiology literature. A summary of the requirements and recommendations for reporting are provided in Table 2. Some of these requirements and recommendations may be more applicable to large trials than small case
Acknowledgements
Dr. Martin G. Radvany authored the first draft of this document and served as topic leader during the subsequent revisions of the draft. Dr. Steve Millward is chair of the SIR Technology Assessment Committee and Dr. John Cardella is SIR Standards Division Councilor. Other members of the Technology Assessment Committees who participated in the development of this clinical practice guideline are (listed alphabetically): Mark Baerlocher, Filip Banovac, MD, John Dean Barr, MD, Gary J. Becker, MD,
References (56)
- et al.
Position statement on percutaneous vertebral augmentation: a consensus statement developed by the American Society of Interventional and Therapeutic Neuroradiology, Society of Interventional Radiology, American Association of Neurological Surgeons/Congress of Neurological Surgeons, and American Society of Spine Radiology
J Vasc Interv Radiol
(2007) - et al.
Efficacy and safety of balloon kyphoplasty compared with non-surgical care for vertebral compression fracture (FREE): a randomised controlled trial
Lancet
(2009) Epidemiology, etiology, and diagnosis of osteoporosis
Am J Obstet Gynecol
(2006)- et al.
Opioids in chronic non-cancer pain: systematic review of efficacy and safety
Pain
(2004) Measurement of pain
Lancet
(1974)- et al.
CT fluoroscopy-guided percutaneous vertebroplasty for the treatment of osteolytic breast cancer metastases: results in 62 sessions with 86 vertebrae treated
J Vasc Interv Radiol
(2008) - et al.
C-arm cone-beam CT: applications for spinal cement augmentation demonstrated by three cases
J Vasc Interv Radiol
(2008) - et al.
Vertebroplasty and kyphoplasty: filler materials
Spine J
(2005) - et al.
New vertebral osteoporotic compression fractures after percutaneous vertebroplasty: retrospective analysis of risk factors
J Vasc Interv Radiol
(2008) - et al.
A review of complications associated with vertebroplasty and kyphoplasty as reported to the Food and Drug Administration medical device related web site
J Vasc Interv Radiol
(2004)
Quality improvement guidelines for recording patient radiation dose in the medical record
J Vasc Interv Radiol
Preliminary note on the treatment of vertebral angioma by percutaneous acrylic vertebroplasty
Neurochirurgie
Temperature elevation caused by bone cement polymerization during vertebroplasty
Bone
Percutaneous polymethylmethacrylate vertebroplasty in the treatment of osteoporotic vertebral body compression fractures: technical aspects
AJNR Am J Neuroradiol
Spinal metastases: indications for and results of percutaneous injection of acrylic surgical cement
Radiology
Percutaneous vertebroplasty for osteolytic metastases and myeloma: effects of the percentage of lesion filling and the leakage of methyl methacrylate at clinical follow-up
Radiology
Percutaneous vertebroplasty in benign and malignant disease
Neuroimaging Clin N Am
The effect of age and bone mineral density on the absolute, excess, and relative risk of fracture in postmenopausal women aged 50-99: results from the National Osteoporosis Risk Assessment (NORA)
Osteoporos Int
Percutaneous vertebroplasty in benign and malignant disease
Neurosurg Q
NSAID-induced gastroduodenal damage: is prevention needed?A review and metaanalysis
J Clin Gastroenterol
Misoprostol reduces gastrointestinal complications in patients with rheumatoid arthritis receiving nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial
Ann Intern Med
Disorders, diseases and injuries of the spine
The Oswestry low back pain disability questionnaire
Physiotherapy
The Oswestry Disability Index
Spine
A study of the natural history of back painPart I: development of a reliable and sensitive measure of disability in low-back pain
Spine
SF-36 health survey update
Spine
SF-36 health survey annotated bibliography: the first edition (1988–1995)
Value of bone scan imaging in predicting pain relief from percutaneous vertebroplasty in osteoporotic vertebral fractures
AJNR Am J Neuroradiol
Cited by (19)
ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Management of Vertebral Compression Fractures: 2022 Update
2023, Journal of the American College of RadiologyACR Appropriateness Criteria <sup>®</sup> Management of Vertebral Compression Fractures
2018, Journal of the American College of RadiologyCitation Excerpt :Painful VCFs may cause a marked decline in physical activity and quality of life, leading to general physical deconditioning. This in turn may prompt further complications related to poor inspiratory effort (atelectasis and pneumonia) [1] and venous stasis (deep venous thrombosis and pulmonary embolism) [2]. Successful management of painful VCFs has the potential for improving quality of life, increasing the expectancy of an independent and productive life, and preventing superimposed medical complications.
Vertebral Augmentation for Osteoporotic Compression Fractures
2016, Journal of Clinical DensitometryPercutaneous vertebroplasty performed with an 18-gauge needle for treatment of metastatic severe compression fracture of the cervical vertebral body
2014, Journal of Vascular and Interventional RadiologyACR appropriateness criteria management of vertebral compression fractures
2014, Journal of the American College of RadiologyCitation Excerpt :Vertebral augmentation is a generic term referring to percutaneous vertebroplasty (VP) and balloon-assisted kyphoplasty [1].
Vertebra plana: Reappraisal of a contraindication to percutaneousvertebroplasty
2013, European Journal of RadiologyCitation Excerpt :Moreover, conservative therapy can lead to complications, often serious, in older or fragile patients. Currently, most authors agree on the indications and contraindications for the PVP procedure [2–9,15]. However, it is clear from the literature that many authors decline to use PVP for treating severe vertebral fractures, where the vertebral body height is reduced >70%; this condition has been considered an exclusion criteria [4], an unfavorable situation [10], or a relative contraindication [3] to PVP treatment.
M.J.W. received grant support from Siemens Medical Solutions. None of the other authors have identified a conflict of interest.