Background To assess the feasibility, safety and efficacy of a percutaneous doughnut vertebroplasty of circumferential aggressive vertebral hemangiomas (VHs).
Methods We retrospectively reviewed our prospectively collected database of patients with VHs treated with vertebroplasty between January 2009 and January 2018. Patient demographics, clinical presentations and procedural details were recorded. All patients underwent preoperative computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). All vertebroplasties were performed under conscious sedation in the prone position, predominantly using biplane fluoroscopic guidance. A clinical and imaging evaluation (early CT scan and MRI) as well as a final follow-up clinical assessment was performed.
Results Twenty-two patients with aggressive VHs who underwent circumferential vertebroplasty with cementation of the entire vertebral body and at least one posterior hemi-arch were included (six males, mean age 53 years). At 3 months follow-up, nine patients (41%) had complete, 11 (50%) had partial and two (9%) had no resolution of pain. Nine of 14 patients had a decrease in venous swelling on MRI. No complications were observed. Five patients (23%) underwent adjunctive surgery within 1 year for persistence or worsening of neurological symptoms. Clinical and radiographic improvements were maintained to final follow-up.
Conclusions Doughnut vertebroplasty offers a mini-invasive, safe and effective treatment of aggressive circumferential VHs. This technique improves pain in over 90% of patients as well as a reduction in radicular and neurological symptoms associated with a tendency to regression of the compressive epidural venous component of these lesions.
Data availability statement
Data are available upon reasonable request.
Statistics from Altmetric.com
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.
Contributors CR: data analysis, manuscript writeup and review. FG: data analysis, manuscript writeup and review. DCK: data analysis, interpretation, manuscript writeup and review. OG: study design, data collection, analysis, manuscript writeup and review. GM: data collection, analysis, manuscript writeup and review. BB: data collection, analysis, manuscript writeup and review. JB: study design, data collection, analysis, manuscript writeup and review.
Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
Competing interests None declared.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.