16000644-01 importance of fracture reduction and anatomy restoration in patients with vertebral...
TRANSCRIPT
16000644-01
Importance of Fracture Reduction and Anatomy Restoration in Patients with Vertebral Compression Fractures
16000644-01 2
Common Beliefs and Practices
1. “No one has shown that vertebral deformity causes problems.”2. “I manage patients non-operatively for one to three months because the pain might
go away. I am performing balloon kyphoplasty to address pain.”3. “There is no evidence that kyphoplasty restores height.”4. “Sometimes I can restore height with balloon kyphoplasty, but it is not reliable.”5. “Vertebroplasty restores height.”6. “I perform balloon kyphoplasty because it is safer than vertebroplasty. I do not care
about fracture reduction.”7. “I do not perform balloon kyphoplasty on a fracture older than three months
because you cannot restore height in old fractures.”8. “Balloon kyphoplasty and vertebroplasty are pain operations. No one has shown
any difference in the pain benefit, so why should I spend more money or time to perform balloon kyphoplasty?”
9. “Ballon kyphoplasty increases the rate of adjacent fractures more than vertebroplasty, because bone cement stiffens the vertebral body, while vertebroplasty is better because it preserves the bone and only fills the trabeculae.”
10. “No one has shown any benefit to balloon kyphoplasty.”
16000644-01 3
Consequences are independent of acute fracture pain
Impact of Deformity due to VCFs
Spinal deformity correlates with:• Impaired gait, poor balance (Gold 1996, Sinaki 2004)
• Disability, reduced quality of life (Leidig-Bruckner 1997)
• Reduced lung function (Leech 1990, Culham 1994, Schlaich 1998)
• Early satiety, gastric distress (Gold 1996)
• Future facture risk (Kado 2003)
• Excess mortality (Kado 1998, Kado 2004, Huang 2005)
16000644-01 4
Kyphotic Deformity, Not Acute Back Pain, Accounts for Long-term Consequences
16000644-01 5
Deformity Impairs Pulmonary Function
• Medically stable kyphotic patients with no acute back pain versus age-matched controls (n=30)
• Excluded patients with pre-existing pulmonary disease, previous spine surgery
*All differences p<0.05
Culham - Spine 1994
Normal Osteoporosis % Diff
T1-T12 kyphosis (º) 34.9 58.3* 67%
Rib mobility (centimeters)
Anterior expansion 3.5 2.3* 34%
Lung volume (liters)
Total lung capacity 4.4 3.8* 14%
Vital capacity 2.7 2.2* 19%
Inspiratory capacity 2.2 1.6* 27%
Significant negative correlation between kyphosis angle and lung function measures
16000644-01 6
Chronic Low Back Pain
Osteoporosis (≥1 VCF)
P value
Patients (n) 51 34 -
% Vital Capacity 105 94 <0.05
% Forced Expiratory Vol (1 sec) 92 85 <0.05
Schlaich – Osteoporos Int 1998
Kyphotic deformity reduces pulmonary function compared to chronic low back pain patients matched for back pain
Deformity Impairs Pulmonary Function
Adjusted for age, sex and height at age 25No acute back pain
16000644-01 7
Lindsay – Osteoporos Int 2005
Prior Fracture Increases Future Fracture Risk
Lindsay 2001
• Lindsay 2001 analyzed VCF risk within one year in patients with 0, 1 or 2 or more prior VCFs. (JAMA 2001)
• Lindsay 2005 used the same patient cohort to analyze VCF risk within one year in patients with 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, or 8 prior VCFs. (Osteoporos Int 2005)
16000644-01 8
Black – J Bone Min Res 1999
Fracture Deformity and Risk
Increasing fracture risk with increasing deformity
16000644-01 9
Future VCF Risk Predicted by Biomechanics
According to mechanical principles, kyphosis increases anterior stress, predicting increases in future fracture risk
W = body’s center of gravity M = muscles and ligaments in the back = vertebral body
Figures from Yuan – J Spinal Disord Tech 2004
16000644-01 10Silverman – Arthr Rheum 2000
1,425 women on 2 doses of an osteoporosisdrug or placebo, followed for 3 years
Correlation between Number of VCFs and Progressive Decrease in QOL
16000644-01 11
Van Schoor – Osteo Int 2005
The Profound Impact of Radiographically-Detected VCF on QOL (SF-12)
• Study of 334 people ≥ 65 y.o. assessed by radiographs and SF-12
• Loss of quality of life in patients with radiographic vertebral fractures was comparable to that of patients with CHRONIC OBSTRUCTIVE PULMONARY DISORDER (COPD) OR CARDIAC DISEASE
• Patients with 3 or more VCFs had a loss of quality of life comparable to that of patients with STROKE OR CANCER
16000644-01 12
Patients With Acute VCFs Do Not “Get Better”
• SF-36 Physical Function Scores unchanged at 2 years (Hallberg 2004)
• VCF patients treated with non-surgical management did not show improvement in pain and function compared to balloon kyphoplasty patients (Komp 2004, Grafe 2005)
• Worse SF-36 outcomes than hip fx patients at 2 and 5 years (Hallberg 2004, Hall 1999, Zethraeus 2002)
• Mortality greater than hip fx pts at 4-5 years (Cauley 2000, Johnell 2004)
• VCFs are NOT stable– Not always apparent on initial X-ray, collapse can take 18
months (Lyritis 1989, Heggeness 1993, Heggeness 1994, Komp 2004, Grafe 2005)
16000644-01 13
• The highest standard of non-surgical management does not prevent deformity, leading to:– Future fracture– Impaired health – Loss of physical function– Loss of QOL
Reginster – Osteoporos Int 2002
Deformity alone leads to serious health consequences
16000644-01 14
Orthopaedic Principles of Fracture Management
• Anatomy restoration• Rigid fixation• Minimal tissue disruption• Safe and early mobilization
Conservative management does not fulfill Orthopaedic principles of fracture management
Helfet – J Bone Joint Surg Am 2003
16000644-01 15
Patient Outcomes After Balloon Kyphoplasty: Literature Summary
Number or Rate
Studies 35
Prospective 19 (54%)
Concurrently Controlled (with NSM) 2 (5.7%)
Retrospective 14 (40%)
Balloon Kyphoplasty Patients 1,888
Osteoporosis 1658 (88%)
Cancer 203 (12%)
Procedure-Related Complications, PMMA 0.32%
Procedure-Related Complications, All 1.06 %
Data on file at Kyphon. Studies reported in analysis provided at end of presentation.
Analysis current as of 04/2006
16000644-01 16
Balloon Kyphoplasty Studies Consistently Show Positive Outcomes
Outcome
Osteoonly
Canceronly
Both Total
Pain (NRS or Descriptive) 18 3 7 28/28
Ambulation / Activities of Daily Living 6 0 3 9/9
Oswestry or Roland Morris Disability Indices 4 1 3 8/8
Karnofsky Score 1 0 0 1/1
SF-36 QOL Medical Outcomes Survey 1 1 2 4/4
Vertebral Height Restoration 11 4 7 22/23
Angular Deformity Correction (Kyphosis) 10 2 4 16/16
Data on file at Kyphon. Studies reported in analysis referenced at end of presentation.
Analysis current as of 04/2006
16000644-01 17
Komp – J Miner Stoffwechs 2004
Prospective concurrently controlled studyN=19 KP, 17 NSM; mean fracture age 1 month
0
2
4
6
8
10
Baseline 6 wks 6 mo
VA
S P
ain
Rat
ing
Balloon Kyphoplasty
Non-surgical Management
* *
* p < 0.05, difference BK - NSM
0
20
40
60
80
100
Baseline 6 wks 6 mo
Osw
estr
y D
isab
ilit
y In
dex
Balloon KyphoplastyNon-surgical Management
* p < 0.05, difference BK - NSM
* *
VAS Pain Scores Oswestry Back Disability Index
Balloon Kyphoplasty Improved Pain and Function Compared to NSM in Pts with ACUTE Fxs
16000644-01 18
Prospective concurrently controlled studyN=60 KP, 30 NSM; all fractures at least one year old
Balloon Kyphoplasty Improved Pain and Function Compared to NSM in Pts with CHRONIC Fxs
Similar results reported at one-year follow-up(Grafe – Osteoporos Int 2005)
* statistically significant difference BK-NSM (p = 0.007)** Scale: 0 = severe pain; 100 = no pain
(Kasperk - J Bone Miner Res 2005)
* statistically significant difference BK-NSM (p = 0.03)
16000644-01 19
Crandall – Spine J 2004, Gaitanis – Eur Spine J 2005, Ledlie – Spine 2006
Anatomy Restoration with Balloon Kyphoplasty:Recent Height Restoration Results
Paper
% of Estimated Pre-Fracture Height%
ReduciblePre-op Post-op 2 yrs
Crandall-acute
Crandall-chronic
58%
56%
86%
79%
N/R
N/R
92%
80%
Gaitanis-midline
Gaitanis-anterior
71%
73%
87%
87%
N/R
N/R
92%
92%
Ledlie-midline
Ledlie-anterior
61%
61%
87%
81%
88%
81%
90%
N/R
N/R = Not Reported
16000644-01 20
Anatomy Restoration With Balloon Kyphoplasty:Recent Angular Deformity Correction Results
Paper
Local Angulation (°) Last Follow-upReducible
(%)Pre (°) Post (°)
Corrected (%)
Follow-up (°)
Follow-up (%)
Gaitanis 16° 8° 53% N/R N/R 90%
Crandall-acute
Crandall-chronic
15°
15°
8°
10°
47%
34%
N/R
N/R
N/R
N/R
N/R
N/R
Open surgery 14° 4° 72% 10° 29% N/R
Crandall – Spine J 2004; Gaitanis – Eur Spine J 2005; Ledlie – Spine 2006Open surgery, 11 papers with modern pedicles screws published 1990-2003 (References provided at end of presentation)
N/R = Not Reported
16000644-01 21
Anatomy Restoration With Balloon Kyphoplasty:Comparison to Postural Reduction
• Postural reduction through patient positioning provides some improvement
• Balloon kyphoplasty doubled improvement, and final height achieved after balloon kyphoplasty was maintained.
Voggenreiter – Spine 2006
16000644-01 22
Anatomy Restoration with Balloon Kyphoplasty: Correction of Vertebral Morphology
* Definitions according to Genant – J Bone Miner Res 1993: Vertebral Fracture Assessment Using a Semiquantitative Technique
VBs abnormalities predict future fracture risk (Ismail – Osteoporos Int 2003)
Using osteoporosis literature definitions*, nearly 50% of VBs were normalized by KP (Ledlie – Spine 2006)
16000644-01 23
Adjacent Fractures and Bone Cement
• Theory– Bone cement stiffness alters load transfer
in the spine– This leads to adjacent fractures
• Facts– Not true on mechanical principles– Not shown in biomechanical studies– Not demonstrated in clinical studies
16000644-01 24
Functional Spine Unit (FSU)
VB
Disc
VB
Bone is MORE STIFF ~100 MPa
Disc is LESS STIFF < 3 MPa
Bone is MORE STIFF ~100 MPa
The Functional Spine Unit is Mechanically Equivalent to Three Springs in a Series
The Functional Spine Unit is Mechanically Equivalent to Three Springs in a Series
Biomechanics of the Spine
16000644-01 25
The Response of the FSU to a Load is Driven byits Least Stiff Component, the Disc
The Response of the FSU to a Load is Driven byits Least Stiff Component, the Disc
Functional Spine Unit (FSU)
VB
Disc
VB
Load transfer is primarily
through the disc
Biomechanics of the Spine
16000644-01 26
VB
Disc
VB
Stiffening the Stiffer Component Does Not Alter Load TransferStiffening the Stiffer Component Does Not Alter Load Transfer
Functional Spine Unit (FSU) with STIFF BIOMATERIAL
PMMA
PMMA
=
Vertebral augmentation helps restore normal mechanics to a fractured VB
PMMA
Biomechanics of the Spine
16000644-01 27
Fusion Does Alter Load Transfer because the Least Stiff Component (the disc) has been stiffened
Fusion Does Alter Load Transfer because the Least Stiff Component (the disc) has been stiffened
FUSEDFunctional Spine Unit (FSU)
VB
VB PMMA
Biomechanics of the Spine
16000644-01 28
Biomechanics: Stiffness
Table 3 from Kyphon’s White Paper – Feb 2006
Bone cement does not
increase VB stiffness beyond
prefracture state
16000644-01 29
• Rates vary by study, not by method
• Cannot compare rates in these studies due to:– Different fracture definitions– Different time spans– Influence of confounding
factors: age, sex, BMD, prior fracture, and bone-affecting drugs (steroids)
Subsequent fracture rates cannot be interpreted unless the study population “controls” for all
important risk factors
Subsequent VCF Rates after using PMMA
Table 2 from Kyphon’s White Paper – Feb 2006
m
16000644-01 30
Natural History of Subsequent VCFs
• 58% of patients had adjacent fractures (Silverman 2001)
• Likely explanations for adjacent fractures– Biomechanics: Stresses highest at apex of curve– Forces on index VB likely to damage nearby VBs– Adjacent fracture underway but overlooked
Silverman – Arthrit & Rheum 2001
16000644-01 31
Balloon Kyphoplasty Reduced the Subsequent VCF Rate in Prospective Concurrently Controlled Studies
The only two prospective concurrently controlled balloon kyphoplasty vs. non-surgical mgmt studies show significant decrease in new fractures after balloon kyphoplasty
% Pts With Subsequent Fracture
65%50%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
NSM KP
**
*
18%
38%
*p < 0.05**p < 0.02
Grafe Komp 1 yr 6 mo
Komp – J Miner Stoffwechs 2004; Grafe – Osteoporos Int 2005
16000644-01 32
Collection of Level 1 Evidencefrom Clinical Studies in Progress
FREE (300 patient enrollment complete)
– Objective: Level I evidence that osteoporosis patients significantly benefit from balloon kyphoplasty compared to non-surgical management
CAFE (enrollment ongoing)
– Objective: Level I evidence that cancer patients significantly benefit from balloon kyphoplasty compared to non-surgical management
KAVIAR (study in development)
– Objective: Level I evidence that correcting spinal deformity results in balloon kyphoplasty superiority over vertebroplasty
16000644-01 33
Meanwhile, the Clinical Literature Reports that Deformity Correction is Important
• Deformity
• Debilitation
• Disability
• Depression
• Death
16000644-01 34
Although the complication rate with Balloon Kyphoplasty has been demonstrated to be low, as with most surgical procedures, there are risks associated with Balloon Kyphoplasty, including serious complications. For complete information regarding indications for use, warnings, precautions, adverse events and methods of use, please reference the devices’ Instructions for Use.
16000644-01 35
References
Slide 3Gold – Bone. 1996;18(3 suppl):185S-189S
Sinaki et al. – Osteoporos Int. 2005;16(8):1004-10
Leidig-Bruckner et al. – J Bone Miner Res. 1997;12:663-675
Leech et al. – Am Rev Respir Dis. 1990;141:68-71
Culham et al. – Spine. 1994;19:1250-1255
Schlaich et al. – Osteoporos Int. 1998;8:261-267
Kado et al. – Osteoporos Int. 2003 Jul;14(7):589-94
Kado et al. – Arch Inter Med. 1999;159:1215-1220
Kado et al. – J Am Geriatr Soc. 2004;52(10):1662-1667
Huang et al. – J Bone Miner Res. 200621(3):419-423Slide 5
Culham et al. – Spine. 1994;19:1250-1255Slide 6
Schlaich et al. – Osteoporos Int. 1998;8:261-267Slide 7
Lindsay et al. – Osteoporos Int. 2005;16:306-312Slide 8
Black et al. – J Bone Miner Res. 1999;14:821-828Slide 9
Yuan et al. – J Spinal Disord Tech. 2004;17:236-242
Slide 10Silverman et al. – Arthritis Rheum. 2001 Nov;44(11):2611-9
Slide 11van Schoor et al. – Osteoporos Int. 2005;16(7):749-756
Slide 12Hallberg et al. – Osteoporos Int. 2004;15:834-841Hall et al. – Osteoporos Int. 1999;9:508-515Zethraeus et al. – SSE/EFI Working Paper Series in Economics
and Finance, No 512, October 2002Cauley et al. – Osteoporos Int. 2000;11:556-561Johnell et al. – Osteoporos Int. 2004;15:175-179Lyritis et al. – Clin Rheumatol. 1989;8(Suppl 2):66-69Heggeness et al. – Osteoporos Int. 1993;3(4):215-221Heggeness MH & Mathis KB – Chapter 57: An Orthopedic
Perspective of Osteoporosis. In Osteoporosis. Academic Press, Inc. 1996
Komp et al. – J Miner Stoffwech. 2004;(11(Suppl 1):13-15Grafe et al. – Osteoporos Int. 2005;16:2005-2012
Slide 13Reginster et al. – Osteoporos Int. 2000;11:83-91
Slide 14Helfet et al. – J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2003;85-A(6):1156-1160
16000644-01 36
References (cont.)
Slides 15 and 161. Kasperk et al. – J Bone Miner Res. 2005;20(4):604-122. Komp et al. – J Miner Stoffwechs. 2004;11 (Suppl 1):13-53. Berlemann et al. Eur Spine J. 2004;13(6):496-5014. Coumans et al. – J Neurosurg. 2003;99(1):44-505. Crandall et al. – Spine J. 2004;4(4):418-246. Gaitanis et al. – Eur Spine J. 2005;14(3):250-2607. Garfin et al. – Spine. 2006;In press8. Gerszten et al. – Neurosurg Focus. 2005;18(3):e89. Grohs et al. – J Spinal Disord Tech. 2005;18(3):238-4210. Hillmeier et al. – Orthopade. 2004;33(1):31-911. Lane et al. – In: North American Spine Society; 2004;
Chicago, IL; 200412. Lieberman et al. – Spine. 2001;26(14):1631-813. Lieberman et al. – Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2003(415
Suppl):S176-8614. Phillips et al. – Spine. 2002;27(19):2173-8; discussion 8-915. Phillips et al. – Spine. 2003;28(19):2260-5; discussion 5-716. Villavicencio et al. – Neurosurg Focus. 2005;18(3):e3
17. Voggenreiter et al. – Med Review. 2004;1:7-818. Voggenreiter – Spine. 2005;30(24):2806-1219. Wilhelm et al. – Rofo. 2003;175(12):1690-620. Atalay et al. – Surg Neurol. 2005;64 Suppl 2:S72-621. Boszczyk et al. – Eur Spine J. 2005;14(10):992-922. Choe et al. – AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2004;183(4):1097-
10223. de Falco et al. – J Neurosurg Sci. 2005;49(4):147-5324. Feltes et al. – Neurosurg Focus. 2005;18(3):e525. Fourney et al. – J Neurosurg. 2003;98(1):21-3026. Fribourg et al. – Spine. 2004;29(20):2270-627. Garfin et al. – Spine. 2001;26(14):1511-528. Heini et al. – Eur Spine J. 2004;13(3):184-9229. Lane et al. – Orthop Clin North Am. 2002;33(2):431-8, viii30. Ledlie et al. – Spine. 2006;31(1):57-6431. Majd et al. – Spine J. 2005;5(3):244-5532. Masala et al. – In Vivo. 2004;18(2):149-5333. Masala et al. – Radiol Med (Torino). 2005;110(1-2):97-
10534. Rhyne et al. – J OrthopTrauma. 2004;18(5):294-935. Theodorou et al. – J Clin Imag. 2002;26:1-5
16000644-01 37
References (cont.)
Slide 17Komp et al. – J Miner Stoffwech. 2004;(11(Suppl 1):13-
15
Slide 18Kasperk et al. – J Bone Miner Res. 2005;20:604-612
Slides 19Crandall et al. – Spine J. 2004 Jul-Aug;4(4):418-24Gaitanis et al. – Eur Spine J. 2005;14(3):250-260Ledlie – Spine. 2006;31:57-64
Slide 20Crandall et al. – Spine J. 2004 Jul-Aug;4(4):418-24Gaitanis et al. – Spine J. 2005;5:45-54Ledlie – Spine. 2006;31:57-64Open Surgery papers (12):
1) Akahn et al. – Eur Spine J. 1994;3:1022) Alanay et al. – Spine. 2001;26:213-73) Bernucci et al. – Surg Neurol. 1994;42:234) Knop et al. – Spine. 2001;26:88-995) Leferink et al. – Eur Spine J. 2001;10:5176) Lindsey et al. – Spine. 1991;16:S140
Slide 20 (cont.)7) Oner et al. – Spine. 2002 Mar 15;27(6):629-36.8) Liu et al. – Zhonghua Yi Xue Za Zhi (Taipei).
1991;62:619-259) Muller et al. – Eur Spine J. 1999;8(4):284-910) Shen et al. – Spine. 2001;26:103811) Speth et al. – Acta Orthop Scand. 1995;66:406-1012) Wood et al. – J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2003;85-A:773-81.
Erratum in: J BoneJoint Surg Am. (2004) 86-A:1283
Slide 21Voggenreiter et al. – Spine. 2005;30:2806-2812
Slide 22Genant et al. – J Bone Miner Res. 1993 Sep;8(9):1137-48Ismail et al. – Osteoporos Int. 1999;9:206-213
Slide 30Silverman et al. – Arthritis Rheum. 2001 Nov;44(11):2611-9
Slide 31Komp et al. – J Miner Stoffwech. 2004;(11(Suppl 1):13-15Grafe et al. - Osteoporos Int. 2005;16:2005-2012.