Next Article in Journal
αvβ3 Integrin and Folate-Targeted pH-Sensitive Liposomes with Dual Ligand Modification for Metastatic Breast Cancer Treatment
Next Article in Special Issue
Evaluation of Load on Cervical Disc Prosthesis by Imposing Complex Motion: Multiplanar Motion and Combined Rotational–Translational Motion
Previous Article in Journal
Genetic and Modifiable Risk Factors for Postoperative Complications of Total Joint Arthroplasty: A Genome-Wide Association and Mendelian Randomization Study
Previous Article in Special Issue
Biomechanical Comparisons between One- and Two-Compartment Devices for Reconstructing Vertebrae by Kyphoplasty
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Bioengineering
Volume 11
Issue 8
10.3390/bioengineering11080798
bioengineering-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Primary Stability of Kyphoplasty in Incomplete Vertebral Body Burst Fractures in Osteoporosis: A Biomechanical Investigation

by
Oliver Riesenbeck
1,*,
Niklas Czarnowski
1,
Michael Johannes Raschke
1,
Simon Oeckenpöhler
1,† and
René Hartensuer
1,2,†
1
Department of Trauma, Hand and Reconstructive Surgery, University Hospital Münster, Albert-Schweitzer-Campus 1, Building W1, Waldeyerstraße 1, 48149 Münster, Germany
2
Center for Orthopaedic, Traumatology, Handsurgery, and Sportsmedicine, Klinikum Aschaffenburg-Alzenau, 63739 Aschaffenburg, Germany
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
†
These authors contributed equally to this work.
Bioengineering 2024, 11(8), 798; https://doi.org/10.3390/bioengineering11080798
Submission received: 15 July 2024 / Revised: 2 August 2024 / Accepted: 5 August 2024 / Published: 7 August 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Spine Biomechanics)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Background: The objective of our study was to biomechanically evaluate the use of kyphoplasty to stabilize post-traumatic segmental instability in incomplete burst fractures of the vertebrae. Methods: The study was performed on 14 osteoporotic spine postmortem samples (Th11–L3). First, acquisition of the native multisegmental kinematics in our robot-based spine tester with three-dimensional motion analysis was set as a baseline for each sample. Then, an incomplete burst fracture was generated in the vertebral body L1 with renewed kinematic testing. After subsequent kyphoplasty was performed on the fractured vertebral body, primary stability was examined again. Results: Initially, a significant increase in the range of motion after incomplete burst fracture generation in all three directions of motion (extension–flexion, lateral tilt, axial rotation) was detected as proof of post-traumatic instability. There were no significant changes to the native state in the adjacent segments. Radiologically, a significant loss of height in the fractured vertebral body was also shown. Traumatic instability was significantly reduced by kyphoplasty. However, native kinematics were not restored. Conclusions: Although post-traumatic segmental instability was significantly reduced by kyphoplasty in our in vitro model, native kinematics could not be reconstructed, and significant instability remained.

1. Introduction

Kyphoplasty was introduced in 1998 by Mark Reiley [1] and has become widely accepted as a treatment of osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures (OCFs) [2,3,4]. Kyphoplasty offers advantages over vertebroplasty for restoring vertebral body height and kyphosis angle. Although its short-term effects, especially regarding pain relief, seem to be similar to those of vertebroplasty, kyphoplasty may have advantages in safety and long-term effects in OCFs [2].
The safety and successful outcomes of kyphoplasty have led to more liberal indications for the procedure. When kyphoplasty was first introduced, involvement of the middle column of the vertebral body was considered to be a contraindication for the procedure [3]. However, today it is considered safe to treat these fractures with cement augmentation techniques [5,6,7]. Some researchers have proposed that kyphoplasty is safe and effective as a stand-alone treatment even for burst fractures, but no studies have provided strong evidence for this [8].
However, biomechanical investigations have confirmed that cement can stabilize osteoporotic vertebrae under cyclic loading (axial compression). Therefore, vertebral augmentation techniques such as vertebroplasty and kyphoplasty are considered to be effective and minimally invasive surgical methods for the stabilization of fractured vertebrae [9]. These biomechanical results, restoring vertebral resistance to compression forces, might partially explain the reported success of kyphoplasty in pure compression fractures. Correction of kyphosis, vertebral body height, and resistance against compression addresses the main pathology mechanism. In traumatic incomplete burst fractures, additional injuries to the disc and ligaments may influence the stability of the motion segment, the functional spinal unit (FSU).
Previous studies have shown that augmentation without correction of the compressed fracture (vertebroplasty) did not restore the stability of the FSU in a human cadaveric incomplete burst fracture model [10].
Considering the stabilization of wedge-compression fractures—A1 according to AO spine classification—by kyphoplasty in a multisegmental, biomechanical model, contradictive results have been reported [11]. Disch and Schmoelz showed that vertebral body height can be restored, but they found that kyphoplasty could not restore the stability of an intact segment. They found that the initial gain in stability after kyphoplasty was markedly reduced to the level of the fractured specimen with increased cyclic load [12]. Achatz et al. reported that kyphoplasty was neither able to restore the initial vertebral body height, nor could it restore the kinematics of the intact spinal segment, which deteriorated under further cyclic loading [13]. Contrary to this, Holyoak et al. reported that kyphoplasty was able to restore vertebral body height close to the intact status and subsequent cyclic loading did not deteriorate height relevantly [14]. To our knowledge, reports of only two additional studies of the biomechanics of kyphoplasty for complete burst fractures—A4 according to AO spine classification—are available: Wong et al. reported that kyphoplasty failed to sufficiently restore stability as a stand-alone treatment after high-energy burst fracture [15]. Germaneau et al. concluded that percutaneous kyphoplasty offers good primary stability in burst fractures, but that its success is limited by potential lesions in adjacent discs or ligaments [16].
Because, to the best of our knowledge, no study has presented information on the stabilization of incomplete burst fractures—A3 according to the AO spine classification and OF 3 according to the OF classification—by kyphoplasty, we conducted a human cadaveric study using a robot-based spine tester and performed three-dimensional motion analysis [11,17]. The spine tester has previously been evaluated for single and multilevel testing [18].
We hypothesized that kyphoplasty can restore primary stability in a traumatic incomplete burst fracture model.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Specimens

We used 13 human fresh-frozen cadaveric spine samples (Th11–L3). The median age of the specimen donors was 82 years (Q1 [first quartile] = 75 years; Q3 [third quartile] = 83 years), and all donors were female. In all samples, bone mineral density (BMD) was measured using quantitative computed tomography. The median BMD was 75.63 mg/cm3 (Q1 = 70.32 mg/cm3; Q3 = 91.18 mg/cm3). In comparison, a BMD of >120 mg/cm3 is considered normal, one between 80 and 120 mg/cm3 indicates osteopenia, and one of <80 mg/cm3 indicates osteoporosis [19]. Therefore, all samples except one were from donors who had osteopenia or osteoporosis. Samples with relevant morphologic changes beyond age-related degeneration (e.g., tumor, fracture, deformity, fusion) were excluded.
Prior to testing, all specimens were thawed slowly to room temperature and all soft tissue and muscles were dissected carefully to preserve osseous and ligamentous structures.
The caudal and cranial vertebral bodies were rigidly fixed in a standardized manner in a custom-made embedding frame filled with a two-component resin (Technovit 3040, Heraeus Kulzer GmbH, Hanau, Germany). This setup was then attached to customized tools to mount the samples into the servo-hydraulic testing machine and the testing robot. All samples were kept moist during the dissection and testing processes, and the whole procedure was performed in accordance with the process outlined by Wilke et al. [20].

2.2. Fracture Creation

We used a previously validated and reported protocol for the fracture creation, adding a novel mounting frame in the servo-hydraulic testing machine and in the robot for kinematic testing (Figure 1 and Figure 2) [21].
The combination of an osteotomy and a distance-controlled compression using a hydraulic testing machine (Instron 8874, Instron, Norwood, MA, USA) resulted in the reproducible creation of type A3 incomplete burst fractures according to the AO spine classification and an OF 3 according to the OF classification [11,17].

2.3. Kyphoplasty

Kyphoplasty (Figure 3) was performed by a single experienced spine surgeon (RH) who followed the manufacturer’s recommendations. To simulate permanent pressure even in the supine position in vitro, a constant compressive pressure of 100 N was applied during balloon inflation, and balloon pressure was recorded. After the balloon was fully inflated, the position of the hydraulic testing machine was then preserved. After balloon deflation, there was no compressive pressure in the upright testing setup. Polymethylmethacrylate was loaded into the vertebral body according to the manufacturer’s recommendations. The amount of polymethylmethacrylate was assessed via a lateral radiograph in imitation of clinical practice, and the volume of cement intrusion was recorded.

2.4. Kinematic Testing

A first set of kinematic tests was conducted with the intact specimens, both with and without follower load, using a robot-based system combined with a custom-made cardan drive that ensured the application of pure moments (7.5 Nm) for extension–flexion, lateral flexion, and axial rotation (Figure 4) [22,23]. All further tests were performed under follower load conditions (350 N).
Intersegmental movement was additionally recorded by the optical motion tracking system to evaluate the kinematic behavior of each FSU in the multisegmental test setup.
After fracture creation and after kyphoplasty, kinematic testing was repeated to compare the individual effects for each specimen.

2.5. Radiological Assessment

Reconstruction of the vertebral body was monitored by calibrated radiographic examinations, in accordance with clinical practice.
Height for intact vertebral bodies, fractured bodies, and reconstructed bodies was monitored using lateral radiographs (Figure 5). Qualitative monitoring of height restoration was performed by modifying the method described by McKiernan et al. [24]. Measurements obtained included posterior vertebral body height (AB), as shown on lateral radiographs; anterior vertebral body height (CD); central height (height of the middle of the vertebral body (EF)); and the height between the posterior one-third and the anterior two-thirds of the vertebral body (GH).

2.6. Groups

Each specimen was tested intact without follower load (group 1), intact with follower load (group 2), fractured (group 3), and after kyphoplasty (group 4).

2.7. Statistics

Statistical analysis was performed using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test and Bonferroni correction using SPSS (SPSS® Statistics 27; IBM, Endicott, NY, USA).

3. Results

3.1. Fracture Creation and Vertebral Body Reconstruction

The vertebral body height was decreased by the standardized fracture creation procedure to the following percentages of intact values: AB, 91.9%; CD, 75.1%; EF, 76.6%; and GH, 76.6%.
The median balloon inflation pressure was 13.5 bar (Q1 = 12; Q3 = 14.25). The median balloon volume was 10 mL (Q1 = 9; Q3 = 12.5). The median cement volume was 9.6 mL (Q1 = 9; Q3 = 12).
We were able to reconstruct the vertebral body height, using balloon kyphoplasty, to the following percentages of intact values: posterior (AB), 95.8%; anterior (CD), 86.2%; middle (EF), 88%; and posterior two-thirds (GH), 85.9%. Table 1 provides details of the losses of height after fracture creation and after kyphoplasty; Figure 6 provides an overview of the lateral vertebral body heights.

3.2. Kinematics of the Injured Segment (Th12–L1)

An increase in the range of motion (ROM), in the size of the neutral zone, and in the size of the elastic zone after fracture induction was obvious for axial rotation, extension–flexion, and lateral flexion.
In Figure 7 and Figure 8, we considered the intact condition with (light blue) and without follower load (blue) and the fractured condition (yellow) as reference points for estimating the effect of kyphoplasty (red).

3.3. Extension–Flexion

In extension–flexion in the intact condition, ROM without follower load was 5.7° (Q1 = 5.2°; Q3 = 8.0°); under follower load, it was 6.8° (Q1 = 5.4°; Q3 = 8.4°). ROM increased after fracture by 132% (p < 0.05) to 9.1° (Q1 = 8.8°; Q3 = 12.4°). This change can be interpreted as traumatic segmental instability. After kyphoplasty, ROM decreased by 90% (p < 0.05). However, in comparison with the intact state, a significant increase of 120% (p < 0.05) still remained.

3.4. Axial Rotation

Axial rotation in the intact condition without follower load was 4.0° (Q1 = 1.8°; Q3 = 4.6°); under follower load, it was 2.6° (Q1 = 1.2°; Q3 = 3.2°). ROM increased after fracture to 5.1° (150%; p < 0.05; Q1 = 3.7; Q3 = 6.1°). These changes can be interpreted as traumatic segmental instability for rotation. After kyphoplasty, ROM significantly decreased to 4.1° (Q1 = 2.6°; Q3 = 4.5°; p < 0.05). However, in comparison with the intact state, a significant increase in ROM in axial rotation after kyphoplasty remained: 161% (p < 0.05).

3.5. Lateral Flexion

In lateral flexion, intact ROM without follower load was 5.9° (Q1 = 5.2°; Q3 = 7.8°); under follower load, it was 5.9° (Q1 = 4.0°; Q3 = 7.4°). ROM increased after fracture by 277% (p < 0.05) to 16.3° (Q1 = 13.9; Q3 = 20.7°). These changes can also be interpreted as traumatic segmental instability for lateral flexion. After kyphoplasty, ROM decreased to 11.6° (Q1 = 9.5°; Q3 = 12.4°; p < 0.05). However, in comparison with the intact state, a significant increase in ROM (197%; p < 0.05) remained.

3.6. Kinematics of L1–L2

The kinematics of levels L1–L2 show effects similar to those at the experimentally injured level. This effect of partial restoration of segmental stability was detectable for all movement directions: axial rotation, extension–flexion, and lateral flexion (Figure 8; Table 2).

3.7. Adjacent Segments

Each segment was evaluated independently using optical three-dimensional motion analysis. No significant changes were detected in the segments except FSUs involving fractured vertebra (Th12–L1 and L1–L2).

4. Discussion

In the common understanding of spinal instability, (incomplete) burst fractures are considered to be unstable. However, clinical treatment options do not necessarily reflect this assessment under the current understanding of biomechanics.
Previous studies have shown that vertebroplasty without reconstruction of vertebral body height could not restore the stability of the FSU in a human cadaveric burst fracture model [10].
These findings must be discussed within the framework of conflicting clinical findings regarding treatment success with cement augmentation. According to Germaneau et al., kyphoplasty can stabilize a traumatic fractured segment [16]. Therefore, they concluded that percutaneous kyphoplasty offers sufficient primary stability in burst fractures.
This is consistent with some other case reports noting that kyphoplasty should be a reliable and successful stand-alone option for treating traumatic burst fractures [8]. However, Wong et al. reported that kyphoplasty failed to sufficiently restore stability as a stand-alone treatment after high-energy burst fracture due to the compromised intervertebral discs [15]. Their biomechanical results are supported by multiple clinical reports, including those of Oner et al. [25], Zaryanov et al. [26], Josten et al. [27], and Spiegl et al. [28] of the need to use both posterior instrumentation and kyphoplasty to achieve vertebral body restoration and segmental stabilization.
Our findings add to the controversy by showing that kyphoplasty has some potential to increase segmental stability in a traumatic incomplete burst fracture model. We found that the increase in stability in extension/flexion, rotation, and bending was significant compared with that in the fractured state. This effect was evident in the injured index level (Th12–L1) as well as in the level below (L1–L2). It seems obvious that the reconstruction of height leads to some stabilizing effects in both involved FSUs. This effect might be in accordance with the flagpole principle described by Evans [29].
However, the post-surgery values we obtained did not reach the values of intact kinematic conditions, and significant segmental instability remained compared with the intact sample. Therefore, our findings show that kyphoplasty cannot reconstruct native kinematic values after incomplete burst fracture.
In fact, there is little knowledge about the resulting instability in vivo after incomplete burst fractures. This lack of knowledge is replenished by different treatment options, including conservative [30,31], vertebroplasty [32], kyphoplasty [33], instrumentation [30], different combinations of kyphoplasty [31], and instrumentation plus 360° fusion [30].
One explanation may be an inconsistent usage of the term incomplete burst fracture. This fracture type has a wide range of appearances that can lead to different levels of instability. For that reason, we advocate for the usage of differentiated classification systems to standardize the type of injury in clinical practice and experimental research. Even when using a specific classification for osteoporotic vertebral fractures and a corresponding scoring system, it remains difficult to recommend a treatment method. Therefore, additional posterior instrumentation should be evaluated in the presence of an OF 3 fracture [34,35].
Additionally, the importance of active stabilization of the FSU must be discussed. It is well known that biomechanical kinematic studies mainly investigate the passive factors of motion. Some may simulate muscle forces and have shown a glimmer of importance [36]. However, post mortem experiments cannot verify the role of the active motion system in stabilizing the spine, resulting in a limitation of our study.
Van Dieen et al. reported that the changed trunk muscle recruitment patterns in patients with low back pain enhance the stability of the lumbar spine [37]. These findings indicate the potential compensatory mechanisms of the active motion system in case of a resulting segmental instability and may partially explain why some patients gain enough passive stability to compensate after kyphoplasty and others do not. As long as we do not have the tools to evaluate the patient’s active compensatory potential and calculate the required passive stability, we must rely on the findings of kinematic post mortem studies.
Another limitation of our study is the volume of cement used. The cement volumes in the published literature vary significantly, but smaller amounts of cement may be used in everyday clinical practice [14,38,39]. Therefore, our study might overestimate the effect of biomechanical stabilization by kyphoplasty in incomplete burst fractures.

5. Conclusions

Kyphoplasty is able to stabilize incomplete burst fractures by restoring vertebral body height, but significant instability remains in comparison with intact values. Therefore, successful treatment depends not only on correct execution of the procedure, but also on the individual capacity of active segmental stabilization to some extent.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, O.R., M.J.R., S.O. and R.H.; methodology, O.R., N.C. and R.H.; software, O.R. and N.C.; validation, O.R., N.C. and R.H.; formal analysis, O.R., N.C. and R.H.; investigation, O.R., N.C., M.J.R. and R.H.; resources, O.R. and R.H.; data curation, O.R., N.C. and R.H.; writing—original draft preparation, O.R. and R.H.; writing—review and editing, O.R., N.C., M.J.R., S.O. and R.H.; visualization, O.R., N.C. and R.H.; supervision, M.J.R., S.O. and R.H.; project administration, O.R., M.J.R. and R.H.; funding acquisition, M.J.R. and R.H. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This study was supported in part by funds received from Joline (Joline GmbH & Co. KG, 72379 Hechingen, Germany) to cover material costs of EUR 26,031.25. There was no influence of the funder on this article. We acknowledge support from the Open Access Publication Fund of the University of Münster.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The Ethics Committee of the Westphalia-Lippe Medical Association (Ethikkommission der Ärztekammer Westfalen-Lippe) and the University of Munster approved the study (2018-21 672-f-S).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study, consistently with the setting of collection/donation of the anatomical material.

Data Availability Statement

Dataset available on request from the authors.

Acknowledgments

We thank Martin Schulze and Markus Müller of the University of Munster for help in managing the robot-based testing setup. and Alexander Stump for helping in data acquisition. Katharine O’Moore-Klopf, (East Setauket, NY, USA) provided professional English language editing of our manuscript.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Garfin, S.R.; Yuan, H.A.; Reiley, M.A. New technologies in spine: Kyphoplasty and vertebroplasty for the treatment of painful osteoporotic compression fractures. Spine 2001, 26, 1511–1515. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Zhao, G.; Liu, X.; Li, F. Balloon kyphoplasty versus percutaneous vertebroplasty for treatment of osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures (OVCFs). Osteoporos. Int. 2016, 27, 2823–2834. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Ortiz, A.O.; Zoarski, G.H.; Beckerman, M. Kyphoplasty. Tech. Vasc. Interv. Radiol. 2002, 5, 239–249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Hoffmann, J.; Preston, G.; Whaley, J.; Khalil, J.G. Vertebral Augmentation in Spine Surgery. J. Am. Acad. Orthop. Surg. 2023, 31, 477–489. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Li, C.-H.; Chang, M.-C.; Liu, C.-L.; Chen, T.-S. Osteoporotic burst fracture with spinal canal compromise treated with percutaneous vertebroplasty. Clin. Neurol. Neurosurg. 2010, 112, 678–681. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Yao, R.; Yin, P.; Zhang, Y.; Li, D.; Zhang, X.-N.; Tao, L.; Zhou, J.; Su, Q. Is there a risk of further displacement of the fractured fragment into the spinal canal in osteoporotic vertebral burst fractures after unilateral PKP? A prospective study. Spine J. 2023, 24, 1077–1086. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Chen, Y.; Yin, P.; Hai, Y.; Su, Q.; Yang, J. Is Osteoporotic Thoracolumbar Burst Fracture a Contraindication to Percutaneous Kyphoplasty? A Systematic Review. Pain Physician 2021, 24, E685–E692. [Google Scholar]
  8. Oh, T.; Scheer, J.K.; Fakurnejad, S.; Dahdaleh, N.S.; Smith, Z.A. Minimally invasive spinal surgery for the treatment of traumatic thoracolumbar burst fractures. J. Clin. Neurosci. 2015, 22, 42–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Wilke, H.-J.; Mehnert, U.; Claes, L.E.; Bierschneider, M.M.; Jaksche, H.; Boszczyk, B.M. Biomechanical evaluation of vertebroplasty and kyphoplasty with polymethyl methacrylate or calcium phosphate cement under cyclic loading. Spine 2006, 31, 2934–2941. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. Hartensuer, R.; Gehweiler, D.; Schulze, M.; Matuszewski, L.; Raschke, M.J.; Vordemvenne, T. Biomechanical evaluation of combined short segment fixation and augmentation of incomplete osteoporotic burst fractures. BMC Musculoskelet. Disord. 2013, 14, 360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. Vaccaro, A.R.; Oner, C.; Kepler, C.K.; Dvorak, M.; Schnake, K.; Bellabarba, C.; Reinhold, M.; Aarabi, B.; Kandziora, F.; Chapman, J.; et al. AOSpine thoracolumbar spine injury classification system: Fracture description, neurological status, and key modifiers. Spine 2013, 38, 2028–2037. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Disch, A.C.; Schmoelz, W. Cement augmentation in a thoracolumbar fracture model: Reduction and stability after balloon kyphoplasty versus vertebral body stenting. Spine 2014, 39, E1147–E1153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Achatz, G.; Riesner, H.-J.; Friemert, B.; Lechner, R.; Graf, N.; Wilke, H.-J. Biomechanical in vitro comparison of radiofrequency kyphoplasty and balloon kyphoplasty. Eur. Spine J. 2017, 26, 3225–3234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Holyoak, D.T.; Andreshak, T.G.; Hopkins, T.J.; Brook, A.L.; Frohbergh, M.E.; Ong, K.L. Height restoration and sustainability using bilateral vertebral augmentation systems for vertebral compression fractures: A cadaveric study. Spine J. 2022, 22, 2072–2081. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Wong, E.K.Y.; Whyne, C.M.; Singh, D.; Ford, M. A Biomechanical Assessment of Kyphoplasty as a Stand-Alone Treatment in a Human Cadaveric Burst Fracture Model. Spine 2015, 40, E808–E813. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Germaneau, A.; Vendeuvre, T.; Saget, M.; Doumalin, P.; Dupré, J.C.; Brémand, F.; Hesser, F.; Couvertier, M.; Brèque, C.; Maxy, P.; et al. A novel approach for biomechanical spine analysis: Mechanical response of vertebral bone augmentation by kyphoplasty to stabilise thoracolumbar burst fractures. J. Mech. Behav. Biomed. Mater. 2016, 59, 291–303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Schnake, K.J.; Blattert, T.R.; Hahn, P.; Franck, A.; Hartmann, F.; Ullrich, B.; Verheyden, A.; Mörk, S.; Zimmermann, V.; Gonschorek, O.; et al. Classification of Osteoporotic Thoracolumbar Spine Fractures: Recommendations of the Spine Section of the German Society for Orthopaedics and Trauma (DGOU). Glob. Spine J. 2018, 8, 46S–49S. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Schulze, M.; Hartensuer, R.; Gehweiler, D.; Hölscher, U.; Raschke, M.J.; Vordemvenne, T. Evaluation of a robot-assisted testing system for multisegmental spine specimens. J. Biomech. 2012, 45, 1457–1462. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. American College of Radiology. ACR–SPR–SSR Practice Parameter for the Performance of Quantitative Computed Tomography (QCT) Bone Mineral Density. Available online: https://www.acr.org (accessed on 22 July 2024).
  20. Wilke, H.J.; Wenger, K.; Claes, L. Testing criteria for spinal implants: Recommendations for the standardization of in vitro stability testing of spinal implants. Eur. Spine J. 1998, 7, 148–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Hartensuer, R.; Gasch, A.; Gehweiler, D.; Schanz, S.; Schulze, M.; Matuszewski, L.; Langer, M.; Raschke, M.J.; Vordemvenne, T. Experimentally induced incomplete burst fractures—A novel technique for calf and human specimens. BMC Musculoskelet. Disord. 2012, 13, 45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Patwardhan, A.G.; Havey, R.M.; Carandang, G.; Simonds, J.; Voronov, L.I.; Ghanayem, A.J.; Meade, K.P.; Gavin, T.M.; Paxinos, O. Effect of compressive follower preload on the flexion-extension response of the human lumbar spine. J. Orthop. Res. 2003, 21, 540–546. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Rohlmann, A.; Zander, T.; Rao, M.; Bergmann, G. Applying a follower load delivers realistic results for simulating standing. J. Biomech. 2009, 42, 1520–1526. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. McKiernan, F.; Faciszewski, T.; Jensen, R. Reporting height restoration in vertebral compression fractures. Spine 2003, 28, 2517–2521. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Oner, F.C.; Verlaan, J.-J.; Verbout, A.J.; Dhert, W.J.A. Cement augmentation techniques in traumatic thoracolumbar spine fractures. Spine 2006, 31, S89–S95, discussion S104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Zaryanov, A.V.; Park, D.K.; Khalil, J.G.; Baker, K.C.; Fischgrund, J.S. Cement augmentation in vertebral burst fractures. Neurosurg. Focus 2014, 37, E5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Josten, C.; Schmidt, C.; Spiegl, U. Osteoporotische Wirbelkörperfrakturen der thorakolumbalen Wirbelsäule. Diagn. Behandlungsstrategien. Chir. 2012, 83, 866–874. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Spiegl, U.; Jarvers, J.-S.; Heyde, C.-E.; Josten, C. Osteoporotic vertebral body fractures of the thoracolumbar spine: Indications and techniques of a 360°-stabilization. Eur. J. Trauma Emerg. Surg. 2017, 43, 27–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Evans, J.H. Biomechanics of lumbar fusion. Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res. 1985, 193, 38–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Uchida, K.; Kobayashi, S.; Matsuzaki, M.; Nakajima, H.; Shimada, S.; Yayama, T.; Sato, R.; Baba, H. Anterior versus posterior surgery for osteoporotic vertebral collapse with neurological deficit in the thoracolumbar spine. Eur. Spine J. 2006, 15, 1759–1767. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Marco, R.A.W.; Kushwaha, V.P. Thoracolumbar burst fractures treated with posterior decompression and pedicle screw instrumentation supplemented with balloon-assisted vertebroplasty and calcium phosphate reconstruction. J. Bone Jt. Surg. Am. 2009, 91, 20–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Shin, J.J.; Chin, D.K.; Yoon, Y.S. Percutaneous vertebroplasty for the treatment of osteoporotic burst fractures. Acta Neurochir. 2009, 151, 141–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Hartmann, F.; Gercek, E.; Leiner, L.; Rommens, P.M. Kyphoplasty as an alternative treatment of traumatic thoracolumbar burst fractures Magerl type A3. Injury 2012, 43, 409–415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Ullrich, B.W.; Schenk, P.; Scheyerer, M.J.; Bäumlein, M.; Katscher, S.; Schnake, K.J.; Zimmermann, V.; Schwarz, F.; Schmeiser, G.; Scherer, M.; et al. Georg Schmorl prize of the German spine society (DWG) 2022: Current treatment for inpatients with osteoporotic thoracolumbar fractures-results of the EOFTT study. Eur. Spine J. 2023, 32, 1525–1535. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Blattert, T.R.; Schnake, K.J.; Gonschorek, O.; Gercek, E.; Hartmann, F.; Katscher, S.; Mörk, S.; Morrison, R.; Müller, M.; Partenheimer, A.; et al. Nonsurgical and Surgical Management of Osteoporotic Vertebral Body Fractures: Recommendations of the Spine Section of the German Society for Orthopaedics and Trauma (DGOU). Glob. Spine J. 2018, 8, 50S–55S. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Wilke, H.J.; Wolf, S.; Claes, L.E.; Arand, M.; Wiesend, A. Stability increase of the lumbar spine with different muscle groups. A biomechanical in vitro study. Spine 1995, 20, 192–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. van Dieën, J.H.; Cholewicki, J.; Radebold, A. Trunk muscle recruitment patterns in patients with low back pain enhance the stability of the lumbar spine. Spine 2003, 28, 834–841. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Adida, S.; Taori, S.; Wong, V.R.; Tang, A.; Sefcik, R.K.; Zhang, X.; Gerszten, P.C. Analysis of injected cement volume and clinical outcomes following balloon-assisted kyphoplasty in a series of 368 patients. Clin. Neurol. Neurosurg. 2024, 243, 108367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Sun, N.; Zhang, Y.; Xie, D.; Chen, Y.; Liu, Y. Enhancing percutaneous kyphoplasty efficacy in elderly osteoporotic fractures through optimal cement filling ratio. Front. Endocrinol. 2024, 15, 1359550. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Bioengineering 11 00798 g001
Figure 1. Modified fracture creation by distance-controlled compression after osteotomy-like weakening of the upper endplate L1. Specimen before compression (left) and after fracture induction by axial compression (right).
Figure 1. Modified fracture creation by distance-controlled compression after osteotomy-like weakening of the upper endplate L1. Specimen before compression (left) and after fracture induction by axial compression (right).
Bioengineering 11 00798 g001
Bioengineering 11 00798 g002
Figure 2. Hydraulic material testing machine used to create standardized incomplete burst fractures and obtain radiographs. At the left, the mounted motion capture marker (rigid bodies) and radiographic reference (arrow) are shown. At the right is a magnified lateral view of a mounted sample.
Figure 2. Hydraulic material testing machine used to create standardized incomplete burst fractures and obtain radiographs. At the left, the mounted motion capture marker (rigid bodies) and radiographic reference (arrow) are shown. At the right is a magnified lateral view of a mounted sample.
Bioengineering 11 00798 g002
Bioengineering 11 00798 g003
Figure 3. Radiographs of the native sample (a), fractured specimen (b), balloon in position (c), inflated balloon (d), inserted cement (e), and after cement insertion using the anteroposterior technique (f).
Figure 3. Radiographs of the native sample (a), fractured specimen (b), balloon in position (c), inflated balloon (d), inserted cement (e), and after cement insertion using the anteroposterior technique (f).
Bioengineering 11 00798 g003
Bioengineering 11 00798 g004
Figure 4. Mounted specimen in the robot-based spine tester combined with active optical motion tracking to record each single segmental kinematic behavior in a multisegmental setup: overview (left) and magnified view with rigid bodies and follower-load applications (right).
Figure 4. Mounted specimen in the robot-based spine tester combined with active optical motion tracking to record each single segmental kinematic behavior in a multisegmental setup: overview (left) and magnified view with rigid bodies and follower-load applications (right).
Bioengineering 11 00798 g004
Bioengineering 11 00798 g005
Figure 5. Schematic presentation of height measurement via lateral radiographic projection: posterior (AB), anterior (CD), middle (EF), and posterior two-thirds (GH). I1 and I2 are perpendicular midline intersections for the construction of the points E and F [24].
Figure 5. Schematic presentation of height measurement via lateral radiographic projection: posterior (AB), anterior (CD), middle (EF), and posterior two-thirds (GH). I1 and I2 are perpendicular midline intersections for the construction of the points E and F [24].
Bioengineering 11 00798 g005
Bioengineering 11 00798 g006
Figure 6. Boxplot of lateral vertebral body height in millimeters. Anterior (cd), middle (ef), and posterior (ab) values are presented by condition: intact, blue; fractured, yellow; reconstructed by kyphoplasty (kypho), red.
Figure 6. Boxplot of lateral vertebral body height in millimeters. Anterior (cd), middle (ef), and posterior (ab) values are presented by condition: intact, blue; fractured, yellow; reconstructed by kyphoplasty (kypho), red.
Bioengineering 11 00798 g006
Bioengineering 11 00798 g007
Figure 7. Boxplot of kinematic median values of functional spinal unit Th12–L1 for axial rotation, extension–flexion, and lateral flexion. Intact values without (light blue) and with follower load (blue), fractured values with follower load (yellow), and values after kyphoplasty with follower load (red). Circle represents outliers and five-pointed asterisk represents extreme outliers.
Figure 7. Boxplot of kinematic median values of functional spinal unit Th12–L1 for axial rotation, extension–flexion, and lateral flexion. Intact values without (light blue) and with follower load (blue), fractured values with follower load (yellow), and values after kyphoplasty with follower load (red). Circle represents outliers and five-pointed asterisk represents extreme outliers.
Bioengineering 11 00798 g007
Bioengineering 11 00798 g008
Figure 8. Boxplot of kinematic median values of functional spinal unit L1–L2 for axial rotation, extension–flexion, and lateral flexion. Intact values without (light blue) and with follower load (blue), values for fractures with follower load (yellow), and values after kyphoplasty with follower load (red). Circle represents outliers and five-pointed asterisk represents extreme outliers.
Figure 8. Boxplot of kinematic median values of functional spinal unit L1–L2 for axial rotation, extension–flexion, and lateral flexion. Intact values without (light blue) and with follower load (blue), values for fractures with follower load (yellow), and values after kyphoplasty with follower load (red). Circle represents outliers and five-pointed asterisk represents extreme outliers.
Bioengineering 11 00798 g008
Table 1. Vertebral body height (millimeters) after fracture creation and after kyphoplasty.
Table 1. Vertebral body height (millimeters) after fracture creation and after kyphoplasty.
Specimen12345678910111213Median Q1Q3
Native
Anterior (CD)22.526.427.525.820.725.12726.124.327.826.828.422.126.123.427.3
Middle (EF)21.826.325.32724.425.726.324.826.526.327.225.924.325.924.626.4
Posterior two-thirds (GH)232725.627.424.926.527.424.227.227.127.226.924.926.924.927.2
Posterior (AB)28.828.828.328.323.828.62927.928.128.429.130.326.928.42828.9
Fractured
Anterior (CD)18.816.52721.921.219.818.319.118.716.919.919.62019.618.520.6
Middle (EF)18.317.322.42217.621.518.518.62119.120.919.920.619.918.421.3
Posterior two-thirds (GH)19.91922.922.119.322.42018.521.920.621.22222.321.219.622.2
Posterior (AB)27.126.12624.924.526.623.923.227.224.827.128.326.526.124.727.1
Reconstructed
Anterior (CD)22.519.226.823.221.92123.522.520.422.62625.72222.521.524.6
Middle (EF)2119.723.224.420.922.819.721.121.923.223.523.823.522.821.023.5
Posterior two-thirds (GH)23.121.223.324.321.923.520.520.722.323.223.425.123.523.221.623.5
Posterior (AB)28.62627.227.624.827.224.725.327.126.827.528.927.427.225.727.6
AB, posterior vertebral body height; CD, anterior vertebral body height; EF, central vertebral body height, aka height of the middle of the vertebral body; GH, height between the posterior one-third and the anterior two-thirds of the vertebral body; Q1 and Q3, median values for first and third quartiles, respectively.
Table 2. Kinematics (range of motion [°]), Q1 = 1st quartile; Q3 = 3rd quartile.
Table 2. Kinematics (range of motion [°]), Q1 = 1st quartile; Q3 = 3rd quartile.
Group 1: Intact
without Follower Load		Group 2: Intact
with Follower Load		Group 3: Fracture
with Follower Load		Group 4: Kyphoplasty
with Follower Load
MedianQ1Q3MedianQ1Q3MedianQ1Q3MedianQ1Q3
Axial rotation
Th11–Th125.22.05.73.31.74.63.41.84.53.11.85.0
Th12–L14.01.84.72.61.23.25.13.76.14.12.64.5
L1–L23.12.53.82.11.82.62.92.13.63.12.14.1
L2–L34.43.46.12.62.24.22.72.44.22.92.44.3
Extension-Flexion
Th11–Th124.83.85.64.63.55.64.74.26.65.03.06.7
Th12–L15.75.28.056.85.48.49.18.812.48.26.89.7
L1–L26.55.17.26.55.77.87.56.010.06.35.58.9
L2–L38.26.38.98.66.39.79.06.29.99.66.39.9
Lateral flexion
Th11–Th124.23.56.43.11.74.53.61.84.63.81.44.7
Th12–L15.95.27.85.94.07.416.313.920.711.69.314.0
L1–L27.96.38.97.16.18.914.39.216.09.27.412.4
L2– L39.96.711.79.05.911.29.85.914.99.66.613.2
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Riesenbeck, O.; Czarnowski, N.; Raschke, M.J.; Oeckenpöhler, S.; Hartensuer, R. Primary Stability of Kyphoplasty in Incomplete Vertebral Body Burst Fractures in Osteoporosis: A Biomechanical Investigation. Bioengineering 2024, 11, 798. https://doi.org/10.3390/bioengineering11080798

AMA Style

Riesenbeck O, Czarnowski N, Raschke MJ, Oeckenpöhler S, Hartensuer R. Primary Stability of Kyphoplasty in Incomplete Vertebral Body Burst Fractures in Osteoporosis: A Biomechanical Investigation. Bioengineering. 2024; 11(8):798. https://doi.org/10.3390/bioengineering11080798

Chicago/Turabian Style

Riesenbeck, Oliver, Niklas Czarnowski, Michael Johannes Raschke, Simon Oeckenpöhler, and René Hartensuer. 2024. "Primary Stability of Kyphoplasty in Incomplete Vertebral Body Burst Fractures in Osteoporosis: A Biomechanical Investigation" Bioengineering 11, no. 8: 798. https://doi.org/10.3390/bioengineering11080798

APA Style

Riesenbeck, O., Czarnowski, N., Raschke, M. J., Oeckenpöhler, S., & Hartensuer, R. (2024). Primary Stability of Kyphoplasty in Incomplete Vertebral Body Burst Fractures in Osteoporosis: A Biomechanical Investigation. Bioengineering, 11(8), 798. https://doi.org/10.3390/bioengineering11080798

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop