A vertebral fracture is the most common type of osteoporotic fracture. Osteoporotic vertebral fractures (OVFs) cause a variety of morbidities and deaths. There are currently few “gold standard treatments” outlined for the management of OVFs in terms of quantity and quality. Conservative treatment is the primary treatment option for OVFs. The treatment of pain includes short-term bed rest, analgesic medication, anti-osteoporotic medications, exercise, and a brace. Numerous reports have been made on studies for vertebral augmentation (VA), including vertebroplasty and kyphoplasty. There is still debate and controversy about the effectiveness of VA in comparison with conservative treatment. Until more robust data are available, current evidence does not support the routine use of VA for OVF. Despite the fact that the majority of OVFs heal without surgery, 15%–35% of patients with an unstable fracture, persistent intractable back pain, or severely collapsed vertebra that causes a neurologic deficit, kyphosis, or chronic pseudarthrosis frequently require surgery. Because no single approach can guarantee the best surgical outcomes, customized surgical techniques are required. Surgeons must stay current on developments in the osteoporotic spine field and be open to new treatment options. Osteoporosis management and prevention are critical to lowering the risk of future OVFs. Clinical studies on bisphosphonate’s effects on fracture healing are lacking. Teriparatide was intermittently administered, which dramatically improved spinal fusion and fracture healing while lowering mortality risk. According to the available literature, there are no standard management methods for OVFs. More multimodal approaches, including conservative and surgical treatment, VA, and medications that treat osteoporosis and promote fracture healing, are required to improve the quality of the majority of guidelines.

Suh YS, et al. J Korean Med Sci. 2017 Dec;32(12):2035-2041. https://doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2017.32.12.2035

Roh YH, et al. J Korean Med Sci. 2022 Mar;37(13):e105. https://doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2022.37.e105

A retrospective case-control study. The usefulness of a drain in spinal surgery has always been controversial. The purposes of this study were to determine the incidence of hematoma-related complications after posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) without a drain and to evaluate its usefulness. We included 347 consecutive patients with degenerative lumbar disease who underwent single- or double-level PLIF. The participants were divided into 2 groups by the use of a drain or not; drain group and no-drain group. In 165 cases of PLIF without drain, there was neither a newly developed neurological deficit due to hematoma nor reoperation for hematoma evacuation. In the no-drain group, there were 5 (3.0%) patients who suffered from surgical site infection (SSI), all superficial, and 17 (10.3%) patients who complained of postoperative transient recurred leg pain, all treated conservatively. Days from surgery to ambulation and length of hospital stay (LOS) of the no-drain group were faster than those of the drain group (P < 0.001). In a multiple regression analysis, a drain insertion was found to have a significant effect on the delayed ambulation and increased LOS. No significant differences existed between the 2 groups in additional surgery for hematoma evacuation, or SSI. No hematoma-related neurological deficits or reoperations caused by epidural hematoma and SSI were observed in the no-drain group. The no-drain group did not show significantly more frequent postoperative complications than the drain use group, hence the routine insertion of a drain following PLIF should be reconsidered carefully.

A multimodal analgesic method was known to avoid the high-dose requirements and dose-dependent adverse events of opioids, and to achieve synergistic effects. The purpose of this study was to compare the efficacy of our multimodal analgesia (MMA) regimen with that of the patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) method for acute postoperative pain management. Patients who underwent one or two-level posterior lumbar fusion (PLF) followed by either MMA or PCA administration at our hospital were compared for pain score, additional opioid and non-opioid consumption, side effects, length of hospital stay, cost of pain control, and patient satisfaction. From 2016 through 2017, a total 146 of patients were screened. After propensity score matching, 66 remained in the PCA and 34 in the MMA group. Compared with the PCA group, the MMA group had a shorter length of hospital stay (median (interquartile range): 7 days (5–8) vs. 8 (7–11); P = 0.001) and lower cost of pain control (70.6 ± 0.9 USD vs. 173.4 ± 3.3, P < 0.001). Baseline data, clinical characteristics, pain score, additional non-opioid consumption, side effects, and patient subjective satisfaction score were similar between the two groups. The MMA seems to be a good alternative to the PCA after one or two-level PLF.