ライフサイエンスコーパス: vertebroplasty

1 ural pain response and midterm outcome after vertebroplasty.

2 vertebral body, and utility of prophylactic vertebroplasty.

3 predictor of midterm clinical outcome after vertebroplasty.

4 steoporotic VCFs of patients who present for vertebroplasty.

5 rranted to assess the efficacy and safety of vertebroplasty.

6 ng (ADL) (five-point scale) before and after vertebroplasty.

7 n clinical outcome from that of bipediculate vertebroplasty.

8 Eleven of 68 patients who underwent vertebroplasty (16%) and 38 of 63 control subjects (60%)

9 Of 177 patients treated with percutaneous vertebroplasty, 22 (12.4%) developed a total of 36 new v

10 se in wedge angle with kyphoplasty than with vertebroplasty (3.1 degrees vs 1.6 degrees, respectively

11 eight was greater with kyphoplasty than with vertebroplasty (5.1 mm vs 2.3 mm, respectively; P < .05)

12 During percutaneous vertebroplasty, a screw-plunger syringe provides a power

13 of a unipediculate approach in percutaneous vertebroplasty allows filling of both vertebral halves f

14 ents underwent the assigned intervention (68 vertebroplasties and 63 simulated procedures).

15 osteoporosis include bracing, exercise, and vertebroplasty and kyphoplasty.

16 ereotactic radiosurgery, separation surgery, vertebroplasty, and minimally invasive local ablative ap

17 , number of fractures, time from fracture to vertebroplasty, and time from vertebroplasty to question

18 f vertebral fractures with percutaneous PMMA vertebroplasty appears to be safe and results in substan

19 te of evidence in support of the efficacy of vertebroplasty are discussed, with particular attention

20 Clefts were defined at the time of vertebroplasty as confluent reservoirs for polymethylmet

21 ed from plastic or aluminum were used during vertebroplasty at 172 levels in 86 patient-treatment ses

22 secutive patients with 82 VCFs who underwent vertebroplasty at a tertiary referral center.

23 use) scores were monitored before and after vertebroplasty at specified intervals following treatmen

24 e, 76 years) who underwent percutaneous PMMA vertebroplasty between 1996 and 1999, 245 were successfu

25 had substantially impaired ambulation before vertebroplasty compared with 28% afterward (P <.001).

26 In AT analyses, patients treated with vertebroplasty did not differ from control subjects in t

27 In ITT analyses, patients randomized to vertebroplasty did not differ from control subjects in t

28 or, were studied; two operators had previous vertebroplasty experience and five were neurointerventio

29 gs in 177 patients treated with percutaneous vertebroplasty for more than 2 years were reviewed retro

30 patients undergoing first-time, single-level vertebroplasty for osteoporotic or traumatic compression

31 Cervical spine vertebroplasty from anterolateral access seems to be a s

32 ssover rate in the control group than in the vertebroplasty group (43% vs. 12%, P<0.001).

33 n pain (a 30% decrease from baseline) in the vertebroplasty group (64% vs. 48%, P=0.06).

34 e hundred thirty-one participants (68 in the vertebroplasty group and 63 in the control group) were i

35 re was no significant difference between the vertebroplasty group and the control group in either the

36 In the vertebroplasty group, no relationship between change in

37 Between the control and vertebroplasty groups, a total of 54 patients offered 64

38 Control patients guessing vertebroplasty had significantly greater pain improvemen

39 is review, aimed at current practitioners of vertebroplasty, highlights recent changes in patient wor

40 ed four-view radiographs obtained during 363 vertebroplasties in 181 treatment sessions in 152 patien

41 ty increased vertebral body height more than vertebroplasty in this model of acutely created fracture

42 Vertebroplasty is commonly used to treat painful, osteop

43 including risk of subsequent fracture after vertebroplasty, long-term outcome of cement in the verte

44 Vertebroplasty may provide a modest reduction in pain at

45 ccessfully interviewed retrospectively after vertebroplasty (median time, 7 months).

46 d to be treated with kyphoplasty (n = 19) or vertebroplasty (n = 18) and were then imaged at multi-de

47 board-approved trial and were randomized to vertebroplasty (n = 68) or control intervention (n = 63)

48 Patients were randomized to undergo vertebroplasty or a control procedure.

49 bral compression fractures to undergo either vertebroplasty or a simulated procedure without cement (

50 patients guessed their treatment allocation (vertebroplasty or control) with a forced-choice response

51 ount of cement injected with kyphoplasty and vertebroplasty (P > .05).

52 f vertebrae with kyphoplasty and in 82% with vertebroplasty (P < .05).

53 DL was also significantly improved following vertebroplasty (P <.001).

54 Outcomes from 841 vertebroplasties, sorted by operator, were studied; two

55 t scale, mean pain decreased from 8.9 before vertebroplasty to 3.4 afterward (P <.001).

56 om fracture to vertebroplasty, and time from vertebroplasty to questionnaire completion.

57 new fractures after undergoing percutaneous vertebroplasty; two-thirds of these new fractures occur

58 een patients who guessed their treatment was vertebroplasty versus those who guessed their treatment

59 patient age and sex, date of treatment with vertebroplasty, vertebral level(s) treated, pedicular ap

60 The first vertebroplasty was performed by Harve Deramond in France

61 In 10 cases the reason for vertebroplasty was the vertebral hemangioma, in another

62 and ability to perform ADL before and after vertebroplasty were evaluated with paired t tests.

63 mpression fractures in patients treated with vertebroplasty were similar to the improvements in a con

64 Retrospective review of percutaneous vertebroplasties yielded 18 vertebrae in 17 patients tha