Revision surgery after cement augmentation for osteoporotic vertebral fracture

Cement augmentation has been proven to be a safe procedure for the treatment of osteoporotic vertebral fracture, and the overall result is encouraging. However, failures caused by different complications are not uncommon, and a few patients even need revision surgery. This retrospective study aimed to investigate the primary causes of revision surgery after cement augmentation for osteoporotic vertebral fracture and how to prevent them, and the second objective was to evaluate the clinical results of revision surgery. The main hypothesis is that infection and neurological dysfunction are the prime causes of revision surgery after cement augmentation for osteoporotic vertebral fracture, and the second hypothesis is that revision surgery is effective to improve the quality of daily life. Twenty-one patients who underwent unplanned revision surgery after cement augmentation were retrospectively analyzed. The initial radiographic and medical records were reviewed to re-evaluate whether the initial diagnosis and surgical procedure were correct and suitable. The primary causes of revision surgery and the details were recorded. The visual analog scale (VAS) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) were used to evaluate the efficacy of the revision surgery, and patients with neurological dysfunction were evaluated with the American Spinal Injury Association (ASIA). A total of 47.6% (10/21) of patients were misdiagnosed initially or had an incorrect indication for cement augmentation surgery, including 3 pre-existing spondylitis cases that were misdiagnosed as osteoporotic vertebral fracture and 7 cases of three column fractures that were treated with cement augmentation. The primary causes and details of the revision surgeries were as follows: 7 patients with infection underwent anterior and/or posterior debridement and fixation; 9 patients with progressive kyphosis underwent posterior osteotomy and fixation; and 5 patients with neurological dysfunction underwent posterior decompression and fixation. The mean follow-up time was 30.6 ± 8.7 months, the VAS score decreased from 7.3 ± 1.1 preoperatively to 2.3 ± 0.3 ( p < 0.05) at the last follow-up, the ODI decreased from 61.1% ± 16.3% preoperatively to 20.6% ± 6.2% ( p < 0.05) at the last follow-up, and 5 patients with neurological dysfunction improved by at least one grade. Infection, progressive kyphosis and neurological dysfunction are the primary causes of revision surgery after cement augmentation for osteoporotic vertebral fracture. Avoiding misdiagnosis and ensuring suitable indications might be the key points to decreasing unplanned revision surgery for cement augmentation for osteoporotic vertebral fracture. The quality of daily life and neurological function can be improved through revision surgery.