Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2013 Oct 7:19:826-36.
doi: 10.12659/MSM.889479.

Current status of percutaneous vertebroplasty and percutaneous kyphoplasty--a review

Affiliations
Review

Current status of percutaneous vertebroplasty and percutaneous kyphoplasty--a review

Yang Yimin et al. Med Sci Monit. .

Abstract

Percutaneous vertebroplasty (PV) and kyphoplasty (PK) are the 2vertebral augmentation procedures that have emerged as minimally invasive surgical options to treat painful vertebral compression fractures (VCF) during the last 2 decades. VCF may either be osteoporotic or tumor-associated. Two hundred million women are affected by osteoporosis globally. Vertebral fracture may result in acute pain around the fracture site, loss of vertebral height due to vertebral collapse, spinal instability, and kyphotic deformity. The main goal of the PV and PK procedures is to give immediate pain relief to patients and restore the vertebral height lost due to fracture. In percutaneous vertebroplasty, bone cement is injected through a minimal incision into the fractured site. Kyphoplasty involves insertion of a balloon into the fractured site, followed by inflation-deflation to create a cavity into which the filler material is injected, and the balloon is taken out prior to cement injection. This literature review presents a qualitative overview on the current status of vertebral augmentation procedures,especially PV and PK, and compares the efficacy and safety of these 2 procedures. The review consists of a brief history of the development of these 2 techniques, a discussion on the current research on the bone cement, clinical outcome of the 2 procedures, and it also sheds light on ongoing and future research to maximize the efficacy and safety of vertebral augmentation procedures.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. Dickman CA, Fessler RG, MacMillan M, et al. Transpedicular screw-rod fixation of the lumbar spine: operative technique and outcome in 104 cases. J Neurosurg. 1992;77:860–70. - PubMed
    1. Galibert P, Deramond H, Rosat P, et al. Preliminary note on the treatment of vertebral angioma by percutaneous acrylic vertebroplasty. Neurochirurgie. 1987;33:166–68. - PubMed
    1. Bascoulergue Y, Duquesnel J, Leclercq R, et al. Percutaneous injection of methyl methacrylate in the vertebral body for the treatment of various diseases: percutaneous vertebroplasty [abstract] Radiology. 1988;169P:372.
    1. Jensen ME, Evans AJ, Mathis JM, et al. Pecutaneous polymethylmethacrylate vertebroplasty in the treatment of osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures: technical aspects. Am J Neuroradiol. 1997;18:1897–904. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Mathis JM, Barr JD, Belkoff SM, et al. Percutaneous vertebroplasty: a developing standard of care for vertebral compression fractures. Am J Neuroradiol. 2001;22:373–81. - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms