Background: Osteoporotic vertebral fractures (OVFs) have become increasingly common, and previous nonrandomized and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have compared the effects of cement augmentation versus nonoperative management on the clinical outcome. This meta-analysis focuses on RCTs and the calculated differences between cement augmentation techniques and nonsurgical management in outcome (e.g., pain reduction, adjacent-level fractures, and quality of life [QOL]). Methods: A systematic review was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, and the following scientific search engines were used: MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane, Web of Science, and Scopus. The inclusion criteria included RCTs that addressed different treatment strategies for OVF. The primary outcome was pain, which was determined by a visual analog scale (VAS) score; the secondary outcomes were the risk of adjacent-level fractures and QOL (as determined by the EuroQol-5 Dimension [EQ-5D] questionnaire, the Oswestry Disability Index [ODI], the Quality of Life Questionnaire of the European Foundation for Osteoporosis [QUALEFFO], and the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire [RDQ]). Patients were assigned to 3 groups according to their treatment: vertebroplasty (VP), kyphoplasty (KP), and nonoperative management (NOM). The short-term (weeks), midterm (months), and long-term (>1 year) effects were compared. A random effects model was used to summarize the treatment effect, including I ² for assessing heterogeneity and the revised Cochrane risk-of-bias 2 (RoB 2) tool for assessment of ROB. Funnel plots were used to assess risk of publication bias. The log of the odds ratio (OR) between treatments is reported. Results: After screening of 1,861 references, 53 underwent full-text analysis and 16 trials (30.2%) were included. Eleven trials (68.8%) compared VP and NOM, 1 (6.3%) compared KP and NOM, and 4 (25.0%) compared KP and VP. Improvement of pain was better by 1.31 points (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.41 to 2.21; p < 0.001) after VP when compared with NOM in short-term follow-up. Pain effects were similar after VP and KP (midterm difference of 0.0 points; 95% CI, −0.25 to 0.25). The risk of adjacent-level fractures was not increased after any treatment (log OR, −0.16; 95% CI, −0.83 to 0.5; NOM vs. VP or KP). QOL did not differ significantly between the VP or KP and NOM groups except in the short term when measured by the RDQ. Conclusions: This meta-analysis provides evidence in favor of the surgical treatment of OVFs. Surgery was associated with greater improvement of pain and was unrelated to the development of adjacent-level fractures or QOL. Although improvements in sagittal balance after surgery were poorly documented, surgical treatment may be warranted if pain is a relevant problem. Level of Evidence: Therapeutic Level I. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

The aim of this study was to assess the performance of a new vacuum plasma sprayed (VPS) titanium-coated carbon/polyetheretherketone (PEEK) cage under first use clinical conditions. Forty-two patients who underwent a one or two segment transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) procedure with a new Ca/PEEK composite cage between 2012 and 2016 were retrospectively identified by an electronic patient chart review. Fusion rates (using X-ray), patient’s satisfaction, and complications were followed up for two years. A total of 90.4% of the patients were pain-free and satisfied after a follow up (FU) period of 29.1 ± 9 (range 24–39) months. A mean increase of 3° in segmental lordosis in the early period (p = 0.002) returned to preoperative levels at final follow-ups. According to the Bridwell classification, the mean 24-month G1 fusion rate was calculated as 93.6% and the G2 as 6.4%. No radiolucency around the cage (G3) or clear pseudarthrosis could be seen (G4). In conclusion, biological properties of the inert, hydrophobic surface, which is the main disadvantage of PEEK, can be improved with VPS titanium coating, so that the carbon/PEEK composite cage, which has great advantages in respect of biomechanical properties, can be used safely in TLIF surgery. High fusion rates, good clinical outcome, and low implant-related complication rates without the need to use rhBMP or additional iliac bone graft can be achieved.

Alpine winter sports have become increasingly popular over recent decades, with a similar increase in accident incidence. This review provides an overview of the most recent literature concerning spinal injury epidemiology, mechanisms, patterns and prevention strategies in the context of alpine winter sports. The PubMed, Cochrane Library, and EMBASE databases were searched using the keywords spine injury, alpine injury, spine fracture, skiing injuries, snowboard injuries. 64 published studies in English and German met a priori inclusion criteria and were reviewed in detail by the authors. There are various mechanisms of injury in alpine winter sports (high speed falls in skiing, jumping failure in snowboarding) whilst regionality and injury severity are broadly similar. The thoracolumbar spine is the most common region for spinal injury. Spinal cord injury is relatively rare, usually accompanying distraction and rotation type fractures and is most commonly localised to the cervical spine. Disc injuries seem to occur more commonly in alpine winter sport athletes than in the general population. Despite awareness of increasing rates and risks of spinal injuries in alpine winter sports, there has been little success in injury prevention.

Study Design.: Biomechanical cadaveric study. Objective.: To determine whether augmentation positively influence screw stability or not. Summary of Background Data.: Implantation of pedicle screws is a common procedure in spine surgery to provide an anchorage of posterior internal fixation into vertebrae. Screw performance is highly correlated to bone quality. Therefore, polymeric cement is often injected through specifically designed perforated pedicle screws into osteoporotic bone to potentially enhance screw stability. Methods.: Caudocephalic dynamic loading was applied as quasi-physiological alternative to classical pull-out tests on 16 screws implanted in osteoporotic lumbar vertebrae and 20 screws in nonosteoporotic specimen. Load was applied using 2 different configurations simulating standard and dynamic posterior stabilization devices. Screw performance was quantified by measurement of screwhead displacement during the loading cycles. To reduce the impact of bone quality and morphology, screw performance was compared for each vertebra and averaged afterward. Results.: All screws (with or without cement) implanted in osteoporotic vertebrae showed lower performances than the ones implanted into nonosteoporotic specimen. Augmentation was negligible for screws implanted into nonosteoporotic specimen, whereas in osteoporotic vertebrae pedicle screw stability was significantly increased. For dynamic posterior stabilization system an increase of screwhead displacement was observed in comparison with standard fixation devices in both setups. Conclusion.: Augmentation enhances screw performance in patients with poor bone stock, whereas no difference is observed for patients without osteoporosis. Furthermore, dynamic stabilization systems have the possibility to fail when implanted in osteoporotic bone. Level of Evidence: N/A