The efficacy of prophylactic vertebroplasty for preventing proximal junctional complications after spinal fusion: a systematic review

Background context: Prophylactic vertebroplasty (VP) is performed at the upper level of instrumentation during spinal fusion to reduce the risk of proximal junctional kyphosis (PJK), proximal junctional fracture (PJFx), and proximal junctional failure (PJF). This study investigated the effect of VP on patient outcomes after spinal fusion.

Purpose: The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the effect of prophylactic VP on the incidence of PJK in patients with spinal fusion.

Study design/setting: Level III, systematic review without meta-analysis.

Patient sample: Adult patients undergoing spinal fusion with VP.

Methods: A PRISMA-compliant systematic literature review was conducted using PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane, and Embase. Included studies were published in English between January 1, 2001, and May 27, 2021, and reported primary data on adult patients undergoing spinal fusion with VP. Studies were excluded for insufficient surgical details; treatment for vertebral compression fracture; and case series and/or reports with <5 patients. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to assess risk of bias. The primary outcome of interest was PJK. Other outcomes included PJFx, PJF, and adverse events (eg, cement extravasation). Data were expressed as descriptive statistics.

Results: Eight studies with 685 total patients (VP: 293 [42.8%]; No VP: 392 (57.2%)) were included. Five studies were comparative and three were single-arm. PJK incidence was reported in five studies (three comparatives, two single-arm) and ranged from 7.9% to 46.4%; incidence was lower in patients with VP in two of three (66.7%) comparative studies, and equal in one of three (33.3%). PJFx was reported in five studies (four comparatives, one single-arm) and ranged from 0.0% to 39.3%; incidence was lower in the VP group in two of four (50.0%) comparative studies, equal in one of four (25.0%), and higher in one of four (25.0%). PJF was reported in five studies (three comparatives, two single-arm) and ranged from 0.0% to 39.3%; incidence was lower in the VP group in two of three (66.7%) comparative studies and equal in one of three (33.3%). Cement extravasation was reported by four studies and ranged from 0% (0/36) to 48.3% (57/118) in patients with prophylactic VP.

Conclusions: Evidence on whether prophylactic VP decreases the incidence of PJK, PJFx, and PJF after spinal fusion is inconclusive and conflicting. Additionally, the risk of cement extravasation following prophylactic VP could not be evaluated due to insufficient evidence. Further research is needed to determine whether VP has a significant impact on patient outcomes and risks.