Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Effectiveness of a bone substitute (CERAMENT™) as an alternative to PMMA in percutaneous vertebroplasty: 1-year follow-up on clinical outcome

  • Original Article
  • Published:
European Spine Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

The aim of the study was to evaluate the efficacy of an injectable and partly absorbable calcium bone cement (CERAMENT™, Bone Support, Sweden) in the treatment of osteoporotic or traumatic vertebral fractures by percutaneous vertebroplasty.

Methods

From March 2009 to October 2010 an open, prospective study in two centres was performed. 33 patients with symptomatic vertebral fractures were enrolled. Patients were included based on evaluation by X-ray, CT, and MRI. Clinical evaluation by Visual Analogue Scale (VAS, 0–10) and Oswestry Disability index test (ODI, 0–100 %) was performed before the operation as well as 1, 6 and 12 months after the procedure. Radiology assessment post-procedure was carried out by X-ray, CT, and MRI at 1, 6 and 12 months post-op. Intake of analgesic medications pre- and post-procedure was monitored.

Results

66 vertebral bodies underwent percutaneous vertebroplasty. VAS score demonstrated a significant decrease from 8.61 (SD 19.8) pre-operatively to 2.48 (SD 2.36) at 1 month. The score was 2.76 (SD 2.68) at 6 months and 1.36 (SD 1.33) at the latest follow up. ODI score dropped significantly from 58.86 pre-op to 26.94 at 6 months and further down to 7.61 at 12 months. No re-fractures or adjacent level fractures were reported.

Conclusion

Data show that CERAMENT can be a substitute of PMMA in the treatment of osteoporotic and traumatic vertebral fractures, especially in young patients.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Calvo-Fernandez T, Parra J, Fernandez-Gutierrez M, Vazquez-Lasa B, Lopez-Bravo A, Collia F, Perez de la Cruz MA, San RJ (2010) Biocompatibility of alendronate-loaded acrylic cement for vertebroplasty. Eur Cell Mater 20:260–273

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Rauschmann M, Vogl T, Verheyden A, Pflugmacher R, Werba T, Schmidt S, Hierholzer J (2010) Bioceramic vertebral augmentation with a calcium sulphate/hydroxyapatite composite (Cerament SpineSupport): in vertebral compression fractures due to osteoporosis. Eur Spine J 19:887–892

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Schmelzer-Schmied N, Cartens C, Meeder PJ, Dafonseca K (2009) Comparison of kyphoplasty with use of a calcium phosphate cement and non-operative therapy in patients with traumatic non-osteoporotic vertebral fractures. Eur Spine J 18:624–629

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Zhu XS, Zhang ZM, Mao HQ, Geng DC, Zou J, Wang GL, Zhang ZG, Wang JH, Chen L, Yang HL (2011) A novel sheep vertebral bone defect model for injectable bioactive vertebral augmentation materials. J Mater Sci Mater Med 22:159–164

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Hernandez L, Parra J, Vazquez B, Bravo AL, Collia F, Goni I, Gurruchaga M, San RJ (2009) Injectable acrylic bone cements for vertebroplasty based on a radiopaque hydroxyapatite. Bioactivity and biocompatibility. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater 88:103–114

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Folman Y, Shabat S (2011) A comparison of two new technologies for percutaneous vertebral augmentation: confidence vertebroplastys. Sky kyphoplasty. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 12:206. doi:10.1186/1471-2474-12-206 (published online 2011 September 22)

  7. Chen LH, Lai PL, Chen WJ (2011) Current status of vertebroplasty for osteoporotic compression fracture. Chang Gung Med J 34(4):352–359 (July–August)

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Belkoff SM, Mathis JM, Jasper LE (2002) Ex vivo biomechanical comparison of hydroxyapatite and polymethylmethacrylate cements for use with vertebroplasty. Am J Neuroradiol 23:1647–1651

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Lim TH, Brebach GT, Renner SM, Kim WJ, Kim JG, Lee RE, Andersson GB, An HS (2002) Biomechanical evaluation of an injectable calcium phosphate cement for vertebroplasty. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 27:1297–1302

  10. Robinson Y, Heyde CE, Försth P, Olerud C (2011) Kyphoplasty in osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures—guidelines and technical considerations. J Orthop Surg Res 6:43. doi:10.1186/1749-799X-6-43 (published online 2011 August 19)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Al-Nakshabandi NA (2011) Percutaneous vertebroplasty complications. Ann Saudi Med 31(3):294–297. doi:10.4103/0256-4947.81542 (May–June)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Grafe IA, Baier M, Noldge G, Weiss C, Da FK, Hillmeier J, Libicher M, Rudofsky G, Metzner C, Nawroth P, Meeder PJ, Kasperk C (2008) Calcium–phosphate and polymethylmethacrylate cement in long-term outcome after kyphoplasty of painful osteoporotic vertebral fractures. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 33:1284–1290

    Google Scholar 

  13. Maestretti G, Cremer C, Otten P, Jakob RP (2007) Prospective study of standalone balloon kyphoplasty with calcium phosphate cement augmentation in traumatic fractures. Eur Spine J 16:601–610

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Burguera EF, Xu HH, Sun L (2008) Injectable calcium phosphate cement: effects of powder-to-liquid ratio and needle size. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater 84:493–502

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Ryu KS, Shim JH, Heo HY, Park CK (2010) Therapeutic efficacy of injectable calcium phosphate cement in osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures: prospective nonrandomized controlled study at 6-month follow-up. World Neurosurg 73:408–411

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Masala S, Nano G, Marcia S et al (2011) Osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures augmentation by injectable partly resorbable ceramic bone substitute (Cerament™ Spine Support): a prospective nonrandomized study. Neuroradiology. doi:10.1007/s00234-011-0940-5

Download references

Conflict of interest

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, S. Giovanni di Dio Hospital, Cagliari University, Cagliari, Italy

    Stefano Marcia, Claudia Boi, Stefano Marini, Mariangela Marras & Emanuele Piras

  2. Radiology Institute, Pescara Hospital, Pescara, Italy

    Mario Dragani

  3. Interventional Radiology Unit, Institute for Cancer Research and Treatment, Candiolo, Turin, Italy

    Giovanni Carlo Anselmetti

  4. Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University of Rome Tor Vergata, Rome, Italy

    Salvatore Masala

Authors
  1. Stefano Marcia
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Claudia Boi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Mario Dragani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Stefano Marini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Mariangela Marras
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Emanuele Piras
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Giovanni Carlo Anselmetti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Salvatore Masala
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Stefano Marcia.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Marcia, S., Boi, C., Dragani, M. et al. Effectiveness of a bone substitute (CERAMENT™) as an alternative to PMMA in percutaneous vertebroplasty: 1-year follow-up on clinical outcome. Eur Spine J 21 (Suppl 1), 112–118 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-012-2228-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-012-2228-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation