Validity of intervertebral bone cement infusion for painful vertebral compression fractures based on the presence of vertebral mobility.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE It is uncertain whether analgesic effects of vertebroplasty in patients with painful VCF are actually attributable to intervertebral cement infusion. This study aims to assess the validity of cement infusion performed for pain relief based on the presence or absence of pseudoarthrosis. MATERIALS AND METHODS We compared therapeutic effects between PVP and vertebral perforation without bone cement infusion in patients with painful VCF. The subjects were 64 patients undergoing PVP (PVP group) and 67 undergoing vertebral perforation (perforation group). In all patients, preoperative dynamic radiography was performed to assess the presence of vertebral mobility. Patients were classified into 2 groups, those with and those without vertebral mobility, and changes in VAS and ADL scores before and after surgery were compared between the PVP and perforation groups. RESULTS Regarding patients with vertebral mobility, VAS improved during the 3 months immediately after surgery in the PVP group compared with the perforation group (P < .05). Although no significant difference in postoperative ADL scores was observed between the 2 treatment groups, the scores 3 months after surgery were better in the PVP group than in the perforation group. Meanwhile, in the subgroup of patients without vertebral mobility, both treatments produced marked pain relief, but the difference was not significant (P > .05). Moreover, there was no difference in ADL scores between the 2 treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS Intervertebral cement infusion exerts analgesic effects in patients with VCF with pseudoarthrosis. However, in those without vertebral mobility, the analgesic effects of vertebroplasty are the same regardless of bone cement infusion.