Objective  To explore the learning curve and clinical efficacy of percutaneous vertebroplasty (PVP) in the treatment of osteoporotic vertebral compression fracture (OVCF), in order to provide references for optimizing surgical techniques and improving patients' prognosis.

Methods  The clinical data of patients with single-segment OVCF who underwent PVP in the Department of Spine Surgery of The First Affiliated Hospital of Shihezi University from January 2022 to March 2024 were retrospectively analyzed. The cumulative summation (CUSUM) method was used to analyze the surgical learning curve, and the patients were divided into the technical learning group and the proficient group. The differences in intraoperative and postoperative outcome indicators between the two groups were compared.

Results  A total of 107 patients were enrolled, including 43 in the technical learning group and 64 in the proficient group. The inflection point of the learning curve was at the 43rd case. The average operation time of the proficient group was shorter than that of the technical learning group (46.41±4.95 min vs. 66.81±8.92 min, P<0.001). There were no statistically significant differences in hospital stay, complication rate, postoperative visual analogue scale (VAS) scores, Oswestry disability index (ODI) and satisfaction with surgical efficacy between the two groups (P>0.05).

Conclusion  The surgeon's technique becomes proficient after completing 43 cases. The different stages of the learning curve do not affect the clinical efficacy and quality of patients' life, but surgeons should pay attention to surgical details and prevent complications during the technical learning stage to improve surgical safety.

1.Styrkarsdottir U, Stefansson OA, Gunnarsdottir K, et al. GWAS of bone size yields twelve loci that also affect height, BMD, osteoarthritis or fractures[J]. Nat Commun, 2019, 10(1): 2054. DOI: 10.1038/s41467-019-09860-0.

2.Ji X, Xu F, Dong G, et al. Loading necrostatin-1 composite bone cement inhibits necroptosis of bone tissue in rabbit[J]. Regen Biomater, 2019, 6(2): 113-119. DOI: 10.1093/rb/rbz004.

3.Beall DP, Chambers MR, Thomas S, et al. Prospective and multicenter evaluation of outcomes for quality of life and activities of daily living for balloon kyphoplasty in the treatment of vertebral compression fractures: the EVOLVE trial[J]. Neurosurgery, 2019, 84(1): 169-178. DOI: 10.1093/neuros/nyy017.

4.Jun DS, An BK, Yu CH, et al. Practical use of bone scan in patients with an osteoporotic vertebral compression fracture[J]. J Korean Med Sci, 2015, 30(2): 194-198. DOI: 10.3346/jkms.2015.30.2.194.

5.Fei WY, Huo Q, Zhao PQ, et al. Magnolol prevents ovariectomy-induced bone loss by suppressing osteoclastogenesis via inhibition of the nuclear factor-kappaB and mitogen-activated protein kinase pathways[J]. Int J Mol Med, 2019, 43(4): 1669-1678. DOI: 10.3892/ijmm.2019.4099.

6.Frei AN, Gellad WF, Wertli MM, et al. Trends and regional variation in vertebroplasty and kyphoplasty in Switzerland: a population-based small area analysis[J]. Osteoporos Int, 2021, 32(12): 2515-2524. DOI: 10.1007/s00198-021-06026-x.

7.Gómez-Hernández MT, Fuentes MG, Novoa NM, et al. The robotic surgery learning curve of a surgeon experienced in video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery compared with his own video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery learning curve for anatomical lung resections[J]. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg, 2022, 61(2): 289-296. DOI: 10.1093/ejcts/ezab385.

8.Cheng Y, Cheng X, Wu H. Risk factors of new vertebral compression fracture after percutaneous vertebroplasty or percutaneous kyphoplasty[J]. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne), 2022, 13: 964578. DOI: 10.3389/fendo.2022.964578.

9.Li W, Wang J, Liu W, et al. Machine learning applications for the prediction of bone cement leakage in percutaneous vertebroplasty[J]. Front Public Health, 2021, 9: 812023. DOI: 10.3389/fpubh.2021.812023.

10.Feng F, Chen M, Wang X, et al. Translation of a spinal bone cement product from bench to bedside[J]. Bioact Mater, 2021, 10: 345-354. DOI: 10.1016/j.bioactmat.2021.08.011.

11.Dai H, Liu Y, Han Q, et al. Biomechanical comparison between unilateral and bilateral percutaneous vertebroplasty for osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures: a finite element analysis[J]. Front Bioeng Biotechnol, 2022, 10: 978917. DOI: 10.3389/fbioe.2022.978917.

12.Park JS, Kim J, Lee Y, et al. Intra-cardiac embolism of a large bone cement material after percutaneous vertebroplasty removed through a combination of an endovascular procedure and an inferior vena cava exploration: a case report[J]. J Korean Med Sci, 2018, 33(19): e141. DOI: 10.3346/jkms.2018.33.e141.

13.Dong ST, Zhu J, Yang H, et al. Development and internal validation of supervised machine learning algorithm for predicting the risk of recollapse following minimally invasive kyphoplasty in osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures[J]. Front Public Health, 2022, 10: 874672. DOI: 10.3389/fpubh.2022.874672.

14.Vendeuvre T, Koneazny C, Brèque C, et al. Contribution of minimally invasive bone augmentation with PMMA cement in primary fixation of schatzker type II tibial plateau fractures[J]. Front Bioeng Biotechnol, 2022, 10: 840052. DOI: 10.3389/fbioe.2022.840052.

15.He CJ, Liu GD. Comparison of the efficacy and safety of bone-filling mesh container and simple percutaneous balloon kyphoplasty in the treatment of osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures[J]. Pain Physician, 2018, 21(3): 259-268. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29871370/

16.Clark W, Bird P, Gonski P, et al. Safety and efficacy of vertebroplasty for acute painful osteoporotic fractures (VAPOUR): a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial[J]. Lancet, 2016, 388(10052): 1408-1416. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(16)31341-1.

17.Cheng X, Long HQ, Xu JH, et al. Comparison of unilateral versus bilateral percutaneous kyphoplasty for the treatment of patients with osteoporosis vertebral compression fracture (OVCF): a systematic review and meta-analysis[J]. Eur Spine J, 2016, 25(11): 3439-3449. DOI: 10.1007/s00586-016-4395-6.

18.Yu K, Liang B, Zheng Y, et al. PMMA-Fe3O4 for internal mechanical support and magnetic thermal ablation of bone tumors[J]. Theranostics, 2019, 9(14): 4192-4207. DOI: 10.7150/thno.34157.

19.Chevalier Y, Pahr D, Charlebois M, et al. Cement distribution, volume, and compliance in vertebroplasty: some answers from an anatomy-based nonlinear finite element study[J]. Spine (Phila Pa 1976), 2008, 33(16): 1722-1730. DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e31817c750b.

20.Yuan L, Bai J, Geng C, et al. Comparison of targeted percutaneous vertebroplasty and traditional percutaneous vertebroplasty for the treatment of osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures in the elderly[J]. J Orthop Surg Res, 2020, 15(1): 359. DOI: 10.1186/s13018-020-01875-4.

21.Rice MK, Hodges JC, Bellon J, et al. Association of mentorship and a formal robotic proficiency skills curriculum with subsequent generations' learning curve and safety for robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy[J]. JAMA Surg, 2020, 155(7): 607-615. DOI: 10.1001/jamasurg.2020.1040.

22.Keshishian A, Boytsov N, Burge R, et al. Examining the treatment gap and risk of subsequent fractures among females with a fragility fracture in the US Medicare population[J]. Osteoporos Int, 2017, 28(8): 2485-2494. DOI: 10.1007/s00198-017-4072-6.

23.Johansson L, Svensson HK, Karlsson J, et al. Decreased physical health-related quality of life-a persisting state for older women with clinical vertebral fracture[J]. Osteoporos Int, 2019, 30(10): 1961-1971. DOI: 10.1007/s00198-019-05044-0.