1. Introduction
As the most expensive condition, over USD 100 billion dollars per year, and the top cause of disability worldwide, prevalent in up to 70–80% of adults, low back pain (LBP) is a prime target for effective treatments [ 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 ]. LBP has a non-specific etiology in the majority of individuals (up to 80–90%) [ 5 , 6 , 7 ]. The complexity of treatments for LBP can be traced to the multiple anatomical structures that may contribute to symptoms, including intervertebral discs, ligaments, muscles, spinal nerve roots, and lumbosacral zygapophyseal facet and sacroiliac joints [ 5 , 7 , 8 ]. Recognition of specific etiologies allows for precise interventions and optimization of clinical outcomes. There are a variety of interventional pain procedures to target these anatomical pain generators, each with varying levels of efficacy given the often vague diagnosis.
Disorders specific to the vertebrae, on the other hand, have fairly distinctive anatomical etiologies, such as vertebral body tumors, vertebral body fractures, or vertebral endplate disruption or inflammation. These can be addressed by interventional pain procedures, such as vertebral body spinal tumor ablation (STA), vertebral augmentation (VA), and basivertebral nerve ablation (BVNA). Therefore, our review aims to describe the pathoanatomical and diagnostic findings of these etiologies and the safety and clinical effectiveness of these interventions in the management of highly prevalent and costly vertebral disorders.
2. Methods
This study is a scoping review aimed at appraising vertebral disorders, pathoanatomical considerations, diagnostic findings, clinical efficacy, and safety of interventional pain management procedures. Data sources included PubMed, MEDLINE, Google Scholar, and Cochrane Library indexed manuscripts. The literature search was conducted between May 2021 and August 2021 using the following keywords: vertebral body spinal tumor ablation, vertebral augmentation, and basivertebral nerve ablation. Inclusion criteria were human studies in the English language, such as randomized trials, meta-analyses, observational studies, case series, and review articles. All records identified in the search were independently appraised by two reviewers in a standardized, unblinded fashion, using the same strategy to ensure proper cross-checking of the results with the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR) methodology ( Figure 1 ). The PRISMA-ScR flow diagram and process were used to reduce selection bias and standardize inclusion and exclusion criteria [ 9 ]. Any disagreement regarding accepting studies was resolved by a discussion until consensus was reached. Single case reports, book chapters, commentaries, and letters to the editor were excluded. Data extracted from the included studies consisted of the date of the study, authors, journal, study design, core components, and primary outcomes. For all studies, data synthesis and analysis were performed with assessments of risk of bias, quality, and outcome measurements by two authors independently, thereafter reviewed by all authors.
3. Results
Our search found 3801 studies with the selected keywords. Of these, 115 studies were filtered based on our inclusion criteria and reviewed. Seventy-one studies were excluded based on predetermined criteria of original studies related to human subjects related to STA, VA, and BVNA and using the PRISMA-ScR protocol. Forty-four studies were included in our data analysis. A summary of clinically and statistically significant findings from landmark studies and level I and level II studies were compiled, qualitatively analyzed, and reported on Table 1 , Table 2 and Table 3 , along with relevant comments comprehensively outlining the details of each study, statistical findings, sample size, treatment groups, and adverse events.
4. Discussion
Vertebral disorders are associated with significant socioeconomic and medical sequelae due to high prevalence and heavy burden in health care cost utilization [ 54 ]. Appropriate management of LBP is interdisciplinary in nature, focusing on rehabilitation and interventional pain management procedures guided by the specific anatomic pain generator. Although the majority of LBP is nonspecific, subset etiologies of vertebral pain may be spinal or vertebral tumors, vertebral fractures, and vertebrogenic pain from endplate disruption, which can be targeted by specific interventions such as STA, VA, and BVNA, respectively. The studies identified in this scoping review represent the current evidence regarding these interventions in vertebral pathologies. This evidence may provide guidance and support clinical and policy decision-making in the treatment of these very prevalent, debilitating and highly costly vertebral-related disorders.
4.1. Vertebral Body Tumors
Vertebral tumors are benign or malignant growths that involve the vertebral body of the spinal column ( Figure 2 ). Nearly all malignancies are the result of metastasis (97%) rather than primary solid vertebral body tumors. The spine is affected in 30–70% of metastatic diseases with the vertebral bodies, especially throughout the thoracic and lumbar spine, cited as the third most common site for osseous metastasis [ 55 , 56 ]. This association is largely a function of the rich vascular and lymphatic connections to common sites of cancerous tissue throughout the thorax and pelvis [ 57 ]. The spine is involved in 65–75% of breast and prostate malignancies, 30–65% of lung cancers, more than 40% of metastatic thyroid cancers, and about 30% of renal cell carcinomas [ 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 ]. Although much less common, primary spinal tumors include multiple myeloma, osteosarcoma, hemangioma, osteoid osteoma, aneurysmal bone cyst, chondrosarcoma, etc. [ 62 ].
Tumors of the spine most often initially present with a slow, gradual onset of back pain that is persistent at night and at rest [ 18 ]. Aside from pain, these can cause mechanical instability, vertebral fracture, and neurologic deficits if structural decomposition involves compression of the spinal cord or spinal nerves. In this case, the onset of pain may be abruptly acute and may involve radicular signs [ 63 ]. Studies have shown an association with poor quality of life (QoL) and functional status [ 64 ]. In patients with suspected spinal tumors, plain radiographs are first line, and usually help identify up to 80% of benign tumors and some malignancies [ 65 ]. Bone scintigraphy is helpful to identify sites of metastasis and primary origins. CT scan is the most advantageous to examine bone detail and mineralization; however, MRI is superior, especially in the evaluation of bone marrow, spinal canal, and the relationship of the tumor with adjacent structures and tumor vascularity [ 65 ]. Standardized assessments such as the Spine Instability Neoplastic score seek to provide reproducible estimates of metastatic vertebral instability to guide the need for immediate surgical fixation versus more conservation treatment options [ 66 ].
In settings of metastatic spine tumors, spinal surgery aims to correct spinal instability, decompress spaces, remove tumor growth, improve neurological function, and reduce pain [ 65 ]. It is crucial to recognize the poor functional status and limited life expectancy associated with vertebral metastases. Conventional surgery in this population is associated with prolonged recovery and significant complication rates and is therefore typically reserved for patients with neurological compromise and spinal instability [ 18 , 56 , 67 ]. Non-surgical therapies and treatments typically involve analgesics and bisphosphonates. External-beam radiation therapy is often used with variable results [ 64 , 68 , 69 ].
4.2. Spinal Tumor Ablation
Spinal tumor ablation (STA) is an innovative, minimally invasive option to address pain from vertebral body tumors. Percutaneous treatment of non-spinal bone tumors was described first in 1992 with subsequent analysis of radiofrequency ablation (RFA) in a variety of non-spinal osseous structures [ 70 , 71 ]. The feasibility of STA was introduced in 2000 by Dupuy and colleagues with two human cases following an investigation on porcine models [ 72 ]. STA utilizes a percutaneous approach whereby one or more electrodes are inserted into an affected vertebra, and high-frequency alternating current ablates the tumor site. ( Figure 3 ). Conventional radiofrequency causes coagulative necrosis with tissue temperatures of 50–100 °C [ 12 , 73 , 74 , 75 ]. Cryoablation applies a reverse technique for cell lysis with tissue temperatures reduced to −40 °C [ 76 ]. Subsequent pain relief is thought to derive from the destruction of periosteal nociceptors neural tissues involved in pain transmission. Either approach uses only a single outpatient treatment with mild to moderate sedation and local anesthetic. Several companies have created systems with radiofrequency, microwave, or cryoablation approaches. [ 13 , 72 , 74 ]. Treatment goals of STA may be a reduction in large tumor burden or as a definitive treatment for benign small tumors, such as osteoid osteomas or osteoblastomas [ 74 ]. Patient selection should include a comprehensive, interdisciplinary assessment of patient risk factors, medical comorbidities, and tumor burden. Generally accepted contraindications are active infection, coagulopathy, and contraindications to anesthesia or analgesia [ 77 ].
Most studies on STA are retrospective analyses. A few studies are worthy of a more detailed discussion. Anchala et al. published the first available multicenter retrospective analysis of STA with the majority (95%) of lesions also treated with augmentation [ 12 ]. The patient-reported visual analog scale (VAS) was significantly improved at 1 week and 1 and 6 months following the procedure. In sub-group analysis, 54% of patients decreased their use of analgesics. As augmentation was only performed in 95% of lesions, there was a note of two post-procedural vertebral fractures in cases where augmentation was not used.
Although radiofrequency alone has been demonstrated to decrease tumor size, ameliorate pain, and improve function, augmentation is often used during the same procedure. Cement (i.e., poly-methyl methacrylate) is typically chosen for its resistance to vertebral compressive forces, especially when addressing osteolytic metastases. There are limited studies with a head-to-head comparison of VA alone versus STA combined with augmentation, although the combination therapy supports enhanced pain reduction and either similar or improved benefit to functional and quality of life statuses [ 10 , 11 , 78 ].
It is important to note that osteoblastic metastatic lesions cause thickened bone that is resistant to the high-frequency alternating current applied in RFA. Therefore, cryoablation has been proposed as an alternative treatment approach. Tomaisian et al. used liquid argon to induce lesion temperature reduction via the cryoprobe tip during a series of freeze and thaw cycles [ 76 ]. This is thought to cause a transcellular osmotic gradient, membrane instability, and subsequent necrosis. This approach in 31 tumors throughout the spine resulted in significant decreases in numeric rating scores at 1 week, 1 month, and 3 months and persistent local tumor control in 30 cases after 10 months. A recent systematic review reported that microwave ablation technology might provide a possible advantage over other methods with larger ablation zones, shorter procedure times and potentially more effective ablative lesions with higher bony tissue impedance [ 79 ]. Adverse events in reported studies are rare, with the most common related to transient neuropathy or nerve injuries [ 10 , 13 , 14 , 16 ]. Dermal burns at the grounding pad site were noted in rare instances [ 16 , 68 , 71 ]. Limitations to many published studies are inherent to the severe underlying disease process, which is often fatal. Study populations are small, with limited follow-up periods and study drop-out related to deaths [ 20 ]. The diversity of primary tumors leads to heterogeneous study groups that often do not control for patient comorbidities, biological age, duration of malignancy diagnosis, or specific oncology treatments such as radiation therapy, corticosteroid use, or chemotherapy regimens. Furthermore, no randomized controlled trials met the inclusion criteria for this analysis. This should not negate the emphasis of rapid and sustained palliation of pain symptoms and improvement in function noted through multiple studies. Additionally, these treatment processes are inherently advantageous for feasible application under limited anesthesia or conscious sedation. Although no available studies randomize patients to surgical or percutaneous treatment, STA may offer benefits when in settings of poor surgical candidates.
4.3. Vertebral Fractures
Vertebral fractures (VFs) are among the leading causes of debilitating acute back pain in the elderly population. VFs are associated with limited function and poor quality of life and are prone to increased mortality over time [ 80 , 81 , 82 , 83 , 84 ]. Trends in VFs follow bone mineral density in general, affecting more women than men, especially in Caucasian and Asian populations, with increasing prevalence over 65 years of age [ 85 ]. VFs affect an estimated 1.5 million Americans annually [ 86 ].
VFs may result from low-energy or high-energy trauma. Low-energy fractures are defined as fragility fractures, associated with decreased bone mineral density, infections, and cancer, while high-energy trauma is usually associated with high-impact axial loading with or without flexion, extension, or rotational components [ 87 , 88 ]. The most common etiology of VFs is osteoporosis; however, other etiologies include direct trauma, cancer, infection, steroids, chemotherapy or radiation, and other metabolic dysregulations [ 89 ]. Patients with VFs typically present with acute or chronic back pain, aggravated by prolonged standing, walking, or recurrent movements, and alleviated by rest and lying down. Additional symptoms depend on the spinal level of VF and whether it involves the anterior, middle, or posterior columns and the spinal canal, which, in this case, may include neurological findings. VFs may present with visible kyphotic deformity and increased pain with spinal percussion during physical exams [ 90 ]. At a minimum, thoracolumbar spine radiographs, including lateral, anterior–posterior, flexion, and extension, should be ordered if there is suspicion for VF. Additional diagnostic modalities include CT and/or MRI of the area to assess further bony detail, bone marrow edema, vertebral body height loss, etc. ( Figure 4 ). These modalities are also more sensitive for early onset fracture compared to radiographs [ 91 ].
Management of VF aims to reduce pain and the severe disability caused by the injury, improve range of motion and function, and restore quality of life to pre-injury level. Conservative treatment includes oral medications such as analgesics, gabapentinoids, hormone therapy with calcitonin, bisphosphonates, physical modalities, and bracing. Although the majority of VF may be managed with conservative non-surgical treatment, a subset of these with significant vertebral height loss, mechanical disruption, and uncontrollable pain (around 40%) may warrant minimally invasive vertebral augmentation (VA) ( Figure 5 ) [ 92 ]. Despite the initial higher costs associated with interventional pain management, the overall expenditure associated with conservative care over a 4-year span and VA is similar [ 93 ]. Aside from socioeconomic costs, the QoL limitations associated with vertebral fractures must be weighed in the decision to optimize patient treatment [ 94 , 95 ]. Furthermore, although not fatal when in isolation, VFs are associated with increased mortality over time. Common causes of mortality in VFs include deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism, and early treatment of VFs with VA has been shown to reduce mortality [ 84 , 96 , 97 ].
4.4. Vertebral Augmentation
VA has been evaluated extensively over the past two decades. The landmark VERTOS study compared percutaneous vertebroplasty (PVP) with optimal pain medication [ 41 ]. Immediate pain relief and improved mobility and function were seen with PVP compared to medication. short-duration trials also demonstrated superior pain reduction with VA compared to conservative care [ 37 ]. Klazen et al. (VERTOS II) and Blasco et al. also found sustained long-term benefit for QoL and pain scores in a combined 327 patients treated with PVP [ 33 , 36 ]. Subsequent studies extended the evaluation period, such as the 2009 FREE study [ 40 ]. VA compared to non-surgical management over 12 months revealed improved pain, mobility, QoL, and function, with no difference in adverse events ratio or frequency. Multiple other studies supported similar findings at 12 months [ 24 , 25 , 28 , 29 , 31 , 32 ]. Boonen et al. and Farrokhi et al. showed improved pain and functional scores in a combined 337 patients at all intervals over 24 and 36 months, respectively [ 34 , 35 ].
In 2016, Wang et al. compared VA with facet joint blocks [ 30 ]. Despite earlier pain relief with VA, there were no significant differences at long-term follow-up, suggesting that facet blocks may be a reasonable approach to address vertebral pain from VF when VA is contraindicated. However, facet blocks do not resolve important factors in VF related to pain, mobility, function, and QoL, such as correction of kyphosis, vertebral height restoration, kyphotic angle correction, and normalization of mechanical load. Therefore, VA remains the preferred intervention.
There are few studies that did not present favorable outcomes of VA compared to conservative treatment. Buchbinder et al. and Kallmes et al. reported no benefit with VA compared to sham treatment at short-term and long-term follow-ups, with similar improvements in pain and function in both groups [ 38 , 39 ]. The VERTOS IV RCT in 2018 compared 180 patients who underwent VA or sham and found no statistically significant decrease in pain or QoL scores at 12-month follow-up [ 26 ].
A substantial body of evidence favors the use of VA in the management of VF for clinical improvement. Overall mortality and health care cost optimization must also be considered [ 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 98 , 99 , 100 , 101 , 102 , 103 ]. Edidin et al. reported a 2.3–7.3-year life expectancy increase per patient in VA compared to conservative care [ 104 , 105 , 106 ]. Ong et al. noted over 50% reduction in 1-year mortality with VA compared to non-surgical management [ 84 ]. Cazzato et al. showed a 19% all-cause mortality risk reduction (RR) 36% morbidity decrease over 12 months in pooled data from 16 studies [ 107 ]. Hinde et al. determined a 22% reduction in mortality at 10 years after VA treatment [ 108 ]. Subgroup analysis also showed mortality benefits across 2- and 5-year periods.
Hopkins et al. compared VA to non-surgical treatment from a cost perspective in 7541 patients [ 109 ]. This demonstrated a higher short-term cost for VA. However, overall survival and quality-adjusted cost benefits of VA reduced expenditures over time compared to conservative treatment. Svedbom et al. studied data from the FREE and VERTOS II trials to arrive at a similar consensus [ 110 ]. Hirsch et al. concluded the number needed to treat (NNT) at 1 and 5 years was 14.8 and 11.9, respectively, to preserve one life with VA [ 96 ]. Overall, this emphasizes how VF can improve survival and decrease health care utilization.
4.5. Vertebrogenic Pain
Vertebrogenic pain from endplate disruption is an etiology of chronic LBP that presents clinically different from other sources. Historically, the etiology of axial lumbar spine pain has been attributed to many anatomical structures, such as intervertebral disc degeneration, spinal canal narrowing, zygapophyseal joint pain, spinal ligaments hypertrophy, muscles and nerve root inflammation, etc. However, due to limited success with interventions targeting these structures, a recent shift in the vertebral pain treatment paradigm towards vertebral endplates has emerged. The basivertebral nerve (BVN) carries nociceptive input from damaged vertebral endplates related to inflammatory cytokines, substance p , and calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP), histologically confirmed with protein gene product (PGP) 9.5 positive staining under microscopy [ 111 , 112 ]. The BVN is a branch of the sinuvertebral nerve that enters the vertebral body and travels posterior-to-anterior to a bifurcation point about 50% into the vertebral body and divides cranially and caudally towards the endplates [ 113 , 114 ]. Basivertebral nerve ablation (BVNA) is a minimally invasive surgical treatment of vertebral pain performed similarly to vertebral augmentation and lumbar radiofrequency ablation, in the sense that it uses a transpedicular approach to the BVN bifurcation and delivers a high-frequency ablative lesion to interrupt nociceptive signaling from injured vertebral endplates ( Figure 6 ) [ 115 , 116 ]. Vertebral endplates are highly vascularized structures that are particularly susceptible to post-traumatic degeneration, fissuring, intraosseous edema, and inflammatory changes [ 111 , 112 , 117 , 118 , 119 ]. These vertebral endplate changes have a specific phenotypic marker on MRI that directly correlates to vertebrogenic pain, known as Modic changes (MCs) type 1, type 2, and type 3 ( Figure 7 ). Type 1 MCs manifest as the decreased signal intensity of fibrovascular intraosseous bone marrow edema on T1-weighted MRI sequences and as hyperintense or increased signal intensity on T2-weighted MRI sequences. Type 2 MCs represent fatty bone marrow infiltration and typically show an increased signal intensity in both T1 and T2 MRI sequence images in contrast to type 3 MCs that have decreased intensity in both MRI sequences [ 120 , 121 , 122 ]. Although MCs are radiological findings, their presence has been reported in up to 43% of subjects with spinal pain and is highly associated with this subset etiology [ 118 , 119 , 123 , 124 ]. Vertebrogenic pain from endplate damage presents clinically different than other etiologies of chronic LBP with reported painful episodes of greater duration and frequency and with significant functional impairment and disability compared to other etiologies. Pain tends to be axial and progressive in nature, aggravated by sitting, standing and spinal flexion and without radicular symptoms, numbness, tingling or motor weakness. This subset population tends to respond poorly to conservative treatment, epidural steroid injections, facet joint blocks and spinal surgery [ 112 , 118 , 119 , 121 , 123 , 124 , 125 , 126 , 127 , 128 , 129 , 130 , 131 ].
4.6. Basivertebral Nerve Ablation
Numerous clinical studies, reviews, meta-analyses, and society guidelines have reported the safety and clinical efficacy of BVNA in the treatment of vertebral pain [ 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 115 , 116 , 132 , 133 , 134 , 135 , 136 ]. Becker et al.’s study in 2017 reported that BVNA improved function at 6 weeks, 3, 6, and 12 months, with at least a 10-point reduction in ODI in 81% of subjects, as well as clinically meaningful improvement in pain scores and QoL [ 53 ]. The SMART study by Fischgrund et al. compared BVNA with sham treatment in a double-blind, prospective, randomized method [ 52 ]. BVNA treatment reduced ODI by 20 points, and up to 75% of subjects demonstrated a minimal clinically important improvement in pain at 6-month follow-up. However, SF-36 components were not statistically significant between the two arms [ 52 ]. Kim et al. noted statistically significant improvement in postoperative VAS, and 92.9% of subjects noted good to excellent outcomes by MacNab criteria following BNA [ 51 ]. Similarly, Truumees et al. noted significant improvement in pain QoL outcomes at 3-month follow-up [ 50 ]. Additionally, ODI was reduced by more than 10 points in 93% of subjects, and 75% reported greater than 20 points reductions. 50% of subjects discontinued opioid use after BVNA at the 3-month follow-up. Fischgrund et al. also reported similar continuous results with outcome changes at 24-month follow-up after BVNA with a mean 3.6 VAS reduction, 11.84 SF-36 average improvement, 46.4% opioid discontinuation, 60.7% opioid reduction, and 53.7% ODI mean reduction [ 49 ]. Similar results were seen in the INTRACEPT trial by Khalil et al. [ 48 ]. However, this study compared BVNA with the standard of care, including medications, therapy, manipulation, acupuncture and spinal injections. In the BVNA treatment arm, 62.7% of subjects reported greater than a 20-point reduction in contrast to 13.5% in the control group. In contrast to Truumees et al. and Fischgrund et al. (2019), this study found no significant difference in opioid reduction.
Several recent clinical studies, reviews, meta-analyses, and society guidelines reported BVNA safety and efficacy alone or in comparison to the standard of care for BVNA. Markman et al. reported a significant association between opioid utilization reduction and improved ODI post-procedure through a post hoc analysis of the Fischgrund et al. (2018) study [ 47 ]. Fischgrund et al. reported longer follow-up data in 2020, which allowed for analysis of health care utilization reduction following BVNA [ 45 ]. In the earlier study, 70% of subjects had chronic LBP despite spinal injections. The subsequent data showed only 4% of subjects received spinal injections after BVNA, suggesting that this intervention effectively reduces symptoms and minimizes additional health care costs. Smuck et al. reported BVNA superiority to the standard of care (medications, therapy, and spinal injections) at 3-, 6-, and 12-month intervals for improved pain, function and QoL [ 42 ]. However, opioid use did not differ between groups. Overall, BVNA is an effective intervention for the reduction of pain, disability, and improvement in function and QoL in a subset of patients with vertebral pain.
5. Limitations
This study is a scoping review that followed the PRISMA-ScR methodology. It is prudent to comment on the limitations of generalizability in such settings, as three different interventions were evaluated for respectively distinct vertebral pathologies. Therefore, a high level of heterogeneity is introduced, restricting further statistical analysis. A meta-analysis was not possible given the lack of standardization between studies, lack of control in some studies, and different patient selection criteria, treatment groups and outcome measurements.
6. Conclusions
The determination of the specific etiology of spinal pain remains a challenge despite its significant prevalence. The subset of these diagnoses attributed to vertebral etiologies from fractures, tumors, metastases, or vertebral endplate injury may be addressed with interventional options, including STA, VA, and BVNA. STA has the potential to reduce health care utilization while significantly improving immediate and sustained outcomes, including a reduction in opioid use, increased function, and improvement mood and QoL metrics. VA may reduce more than USD 1 billion spent annually addressing VF, as evidenced by multiple studies favoring its early use to reduce pain, improve QoL, facilitate ambulatory status and early mobilization, and ultimately improve morbidity and mortality in patients with VF. Finally, BVNA offers reproducible, sustainable, and clinically meaningful improvement in pain and function, with a few studies reporting reduced opioid consumption and disability and improvement in QoL.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Author Contributions
Conceptualization, V.T.F., B.G. and D.S.; methodology, V.T.F., B.G., A.R., A.S. and D.S.; validation, V.T.F., B.G., A.R., A.S. and D.S.; formal analysis, V.T.F., B.G. and A.R.; investigation, V.T.F., B.G. and A.R.; resources, V.T.F. and B.G.; data curation, V.T.F., B.G., A.R., A.S. and D.S.; writing—original draft preparation, V.T.F., B.G., A.R., A.S. and D.S.; writing—review and editing, V.T.F., B.G., A.R., A.S. and D.S.; visualization, V.T.F., B.G., A.R., A.S. and D.S.; supervision, V.T.F., A.S. and D.S.; project administration, V.T.F. and B.G. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding
There were no funding sources related to this study.
Institutional Review Board Statement
Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement
Not applicable.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest related to this study.
References
1. Dagenais S. Caro J. Haldeman S. A systematic review of low back pain cost of illness studies in the United States and internationally Spine J. 2008 8 8 20 10.1016/j.spinee.2007.10.005 18164449
2. Hoy D. Bain C. Williams G. March L. Brooks P. Blyth F. Woolf A. Vos T. Buchbinder R. A systematic review of the global prevalence of low back pain Arthritis Rheum. 2012 64 2028 2037 10.1002/art.34347 22231424
3. Dieleman J.L. Cao J. Chapin A. Chen C. Li Z. Liu A. Horst C. Kaldjian A. Matyasz T. Scott K.W. US health care spending by payer and health condition, 1996–2016 JAMA 2020 323 863 884 10.1001/jama.2020.0734 32125402 PMC7054840
4. Wu A. March L. Zheng X. Huang J. Wang X. Zhao J. Blyth F.M. Smith E. Buchbinder R. Hoy D. Global low back pain prevalence and years lived with disability from 1990 to 2017: Estimates from the global burden of disease study 2017 Ann. Transl. Med. 2020 8 299 10.21037/atm.2020.02.175 32355743 PMC7186678
5. Deyo R.A. Weinstein J.N. Low back pain N. Engl. J. Med. 2001 344 363 370 10.1056/NEJM200102013440508 11172169
6. Koes B.W. van Tulder M.W. Thomas S. Diagnosis and treatment of low back pain BMJ 2006 332 1430 1434 10.1136/bmj.332.7555.1430 16777886 PMC1479671
7. Maher C. Underwood M. Buchbinder R. Non-specific low back pain Lancet 2017 389 736 747 10.1016/S0140-6736(16)30970-9 27745712
8. Deyo R.A. Mirza S.K. Martin B.I. Back pain prevalence and visit rates Spine 2006 31 2724 2727 10.1097/01.brs.0000244618.06877.cd 17077742
9. Tricco A.C. Lillie E. Zarin W. O’Brien K.K. Colquhoun H. Levac D. Moher D. Peters M.D. Horsley T. Weeks L. PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and explanation Ann. Intern. Med. 2018 169 467 473 10.7326/M18-0850 30178033
10. Nakatsuka A. Yamakado K. Takaki H. Uraki J. Makita M. Oshima F. Takeda K. Percutaneous radiofrequency ablation of painful spinal tumors adjacent to the spinal cord with real-time monitoring of spinal canal temperature: A prospective study CardioVascular Interv. Radiol. 2009 32 70 75 10.1007/s00270-008-9390-9 18661176
11. Proschek D. Kurth A. Proschek P. Vogl T.J. Mack M.G. Prospective pilot-study of combined bipolar radiofrequency ablation and application of bone cement in bone metastases Anticancer. Res. 2009 29 2787 2792 19596962
12. Anchala P.R. Irving W.D. Hillen T.J. Friedman M.V. Georgy B.A. Coldwell D.M. Tran N.D. Vrionis F.D. Brook A. Jennings J.W. Treatment of metastatic spinal lesions with a navigational bipolar radiofrequency ablation device: A multicenter retrospective study Pain Physician 2014 17 317 327 25054391
13. Hillen T.J. Anchala P. Friedman M.V. Jennings J.W. Treatment of metastatic posterior vertebral body osseous tumors by using a targeted bipolar radiofrequency ablation device: Technical note Radiology 2014 273 261 267 10.1148/radiol.14131664 24927327
14. Wallace A.N. Greenwood T.J. Jennings J.W. Radiofrequency ablation and vertebral augmentation for palliation of painful spinal metastases J. Neuro-Oncol. 2015 124 111 118 10.1007/s11060-015-1813-2 26022981
15. Bagla S. Sayed D. Smirniotopoulos J. Brower J. Neal Rutledge J. Dick B. Carlisle J. Lekht I. Georgy B. Multicenter prospective clinical series evaluating radiofrequency ablation in the treatment of painful spine metastases Cardiovasc. Interv. Radiol. 2016 39 1289 1297 10.1007/s00270-016-1400-8 27343124
16. Khan M.A. Deib G. Deldar B. Patel A.M. Barr J.S. Efficacy and safety of percutaneous microwave ablation and cementoplasty in the treatment of painful spinal metastases and myeloma Am. J. Neuroradiol. 2018 39 1376 1383 10.3174/ajnr.A5680 29794238 PMC7655455
17. Reyes M. Georgy M. Brook L. Ortiz O. Brook A. Agarwal V. Muto M. Manfre L. Marcia S. Georgy B.A. Multicenter clinical and imaging evaluation of targeted radiofrequency ablation (t-RFA) and cement augmentation of neoplastic vertebral lesions J. NeuroInterventional Surg. 2018 10 176 182 10.1136/neurintsurg-2016-012908 28385727
18. Tomasian A. Hillen T.J. Chang R.O. Jennings J.W. Simultaneous bipedicular radiofrequency ablation combined with vertebral augmentation for local tumor control of spinal metastases Am. J. Neuroradiol. 2018 39 1768 1773 10.3174/ajnr.A5752 30093485 PMC7655274
19. Sayed D. Jacobs D. Sowder T. Haines D. Orr W. Spinal radiofrequency ablation combined with cement augmentation for painful spinal vertebral metastasis: A single-center prospective study Pain Physician 2019 22 E441 E449 10.36076/ppj/2019.22.E441 31561656
20. Levy J. Hopkins T. Morris J. Tran N.D. David E. Massari F. Farid H. Vogel A. O’Connell W.G. Sunenshine P. Radiofrequency ablation for the palliative treatment of bone metastases: Outcomes from the multicenter OsteoCool tumor ablation post-market study (OPuS One Study) in 100 patients J. Vasc. Interv. Radiol. 2020 31 1745 1752 10.1016/j.jvir.2020.07.014 33129427
21. Mayer T. Cazzato R.L. de Marini P. Auloge P. Dalili D. Koch G. Garnon J. Gangi A. Spinal metastases treated with bipolar radiofrequency ablation with increased (>70 °C) target temperature: Pain management and local tumor control Diagn. Interv. Imaging 2021 102 27 34 10.1016/j.diii.2020.04.012 32482583
22. Cazzato R.L. de Marini P. Leonard-Lorant I. Dalili D. Koch G. Autrusseau P.A. Mayer T. Weiss J. Auloge P. Garnon J. Percutaneous thermal ablation of sacral metastases: Assessment of pain relief and local tumor control Diagn. Interv. Imaging 2021 102 355 361 10.1016/j.diii.2020.12.008 33487588
23. Wu L. Fan J. Yuan Q. Zhang X. Hu M. Zhang K. Computed tomography-guided microwave ablation combined with percutaneous vertebroplasty for treatment of painful high thoracic vertebral metastases Int. J. Hyperth. 2021 38 1069 1076 10.1080/02656736.2021.1951364 34278927
24. Beall D.P. Chambers M.R. Thomas S. Amburgy J. Webb J.R. Goodman B.S. Datta D.K. Easton R.W. Linville 2nd D. Talati S. 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 Neurosurgery 2019 84 169 178 10.1093/neuros/nyy017 29547939 PMC6354561
25. Liu Q. Cao J. Kong J. Clinical effect of balloon kyphoplasty in elderly patients with multiple osteoporotic vertebral fracture Niger. J. Clin. Pr. 2019 22 289 292 10.4103/njcp.njcp_8_18 30837413
26. Firanescu C.E. de Vries J. Lodder P. Venmans A. Schoemaker M.C. Smeet A.J. Donga E. Juttmann J.R. Klazen C.A. Elgersma O.E. Vertebroplasty versus sham procedure for painful acute osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures (VERTOS IV): Randomised sham controlled clinical trial BMJ 2018 361 k1551 10.1136/bmj.k1551 29743284 PMC5941218
27. Hansen E.J. Simony A. Rousing R. Carreon L.Y. Tropp H. Andersen M.Ø. Double Blind Placebo-controlled Trial of Percutaneous Vertebroplasty (VOPE) Glob. Spine J. 2016 6 s-0036 10.1055/s-0036-1582763
28. Clark W. Bird P. Gonski P. Diamond T.H. Smerdely P. McNeil H.P. Schlaphoff G. Bryant C. Barnes E. Gebski V. Safety and efficacy of vertebroplasty for acute painful osteoporotic fractures (VAPOUR): A multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial Lancet 2016 388 1408 1416 10.1016/S0140-6736(16)31341-1 27544377
29. Leali P.T. Solla F. Maestretti G. Balsano M. Doria C. Safety and efficacy of vertebroplasty in the treatment of osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures: A prospective multicenter international randomized controlled study Clin. Cases Miner. Bone Metab. 2016 13 234 236 10.11138/ccmbm/2016.13.3.234 28228788 PMC5318178
30. Wang B. Guo H. Yuan L. Huang D. Zhang H. Hao D. A prospective randomized controlled study comparing the pain relief in patients with osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures with the use of vertebroplasty or facet blocking Eur. Spine J. 2016 25 3486 3494 10.1007/s00586-016-4425-4 26850264
31. Yang E.-Z. Xu J.-G. Huang G.-Z. Xiao W.-Z. Liu X.-K. Zeng B.-F. Lian X.-F. Percutaneous vertebroplasty versus conservative treatment in aged patients with acute osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures Spine 2016 41 653 660 10.1097/BRS.0000000000001298 26630417
32. Chen D. An Z.-Q. Song S. Tang J.-F. Qin H. Percutaneous vertebroplasty compared with conservative treatment in patients with chronic painful osteoporotic spinal fractures J. Clin. Neurosci. 2014 21 473 477 10.1016/j.jocn.2013.05.017 24315046
33. Blasco J. Martinez-Ferrer A. Macho J. San Roman L. Pomés J. Carrasco J. Monegal A. Guanabens N. Peris P. Effect of vertebroplasty on pain relief, quality of life, and the incidence of new vertebral fractures: A 12-month randomized follow-up, controlled trial J. Bone Miner. Res. 2012 27 1159 1166 10.1002/jbmr.1564 22513649
34. Boonen S. van Meirhaeghe J. Bastian L. Cummings S.R. Ranstam J. Tillman J.B. Eastell R. Talmadge K. Wardlaw D. Balloon kyphoplasty for the treatment of acute vertebral compression fractures: 2-year results from a randomized trial J. Bone Miner. Res. 2011 26 1627 1637 10.1002/jbmr.364 21337428
35. Farrokhi M.R. Alibai E. Maghami Z. Randomized controlled trial of percutaneous vertebroplasty versus optimal medical management for the relief of pain and disability in acute osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures J. Neurosurg. Spine 2011 14 561 569 10.3171/2010.12.SPINE10286 21375382
36. Klazen C.A. Lohle P.N. de Vries J. Jansen F.H. Tielbeek A.V. Blonk M.C. Venmans A. Rooij W.J. Schoemaker M.C. Juttmann J.R. Vertebroplasty versus conservative treatment in acute osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures (Vertos II): An open-label randomised trial Lancet 2010 376 1085 1092 10.1016/S0140-6736(10)60954-3 20701962
37. Rousing R. Andersen M.O. Jespersen S.M. Thomsen K. Lauritsen J. Percutaneous vertebroplasty compared to conservative treatment in patients with painful acute or subacute osteoporotic vertebral fractures Spine 2009 34 1349 1354 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181a4e628 19478654
38. Buchbinder R. Osborne R.H. Ebeling P.R. Wark J.D. Mitchell P. Wriedt C. Graves S. Staples M.P. Murphy B. A randomized trial of vertebroplasty for painful osteoporotic vertebral fractures N. Engl. J. Med. 2009 361 557 568 10.1056/NEJMoa0900429 19657121
39. Kallmes D.F. Comstock B.A. Heagerty P.J. Turner J.A. Wilson D.J. Diamond T.H. Edwards R. Gray L.A. Stout L. Owen S. A randomized trial of vertebroplasty for osteoporotic spinal fractures N. Engl. J. Med. 2009 361 569 579 10.1056/NEJMoa0900563 19657122 PMC2930487
40. Wardlaw D. Cummings S.R. Meirhaeghe J. van Bastian L. Tillman J.B. Ranstam J. Eastell R. Shabe P. Talmadge K. Boonen S. Efficacy and safety of balloon kyphoplasty compared with non-surgical care for vertebral compression (FREE): A randomized controlled trial Lancet 2009 373 1016 1024 10.1016/S0140-6736(09)60010-6 19246088
41. Voormolen M. Mali W. Lohle P. Fransen H. Lampmann L. van der Graaf Y. Juttmann J.R. Jansssens X. Verhaar H.J. Percutaneous vertebroplasty compared with optimal pain medication treatment: Short-term clinical outcome of patients with subacute or chronic painful osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures. The VERTOS study AJNR Am. J. Neuroradiol. 2007 28 555 660 17353335 PMC7977842
42. Smuck M. Khalil J. Barrette K. Hirsch J.A. Kreiner S. Koreckij T. Garfin S. Mekhail N. INTRACEPT Trial Investigators Prospective, randomized, multicenter study of intraosseous basivertebral nerve ablation for the treatment of chronic low back pain: 12-month results Reg. Anesth. Pain Med. 2021 46 683 693 10.1136/rapm-2020-102259 34031220 PMC8311085
43. Macadaeg K. Truumees E. Boody B. Pena E. Arbuckle J. Gentile J. Funk R. Singh D. Vinayek S. A prospective, single arm study of intraosseous basivertebral nerve ablation for the treatment of chronic low back pain: 12-month results N. Am. Spine Soc. J. (NASSJ) 2020 3 100030 10.1016/j.xnsj.2020.100030 PMC8819913 35141598
44. De Vivo A.E. D’Agostino G. D’Anna G. al Qatami H. Gil I. Ventura F. Manfre L. Intra-osseous basivertebral nerve radiofrequency ablation (BVA) for the treatment of vertebrogenic chronic low back pain Neuroradiology 2021 63 809 815 10.1007/s00234-020-02577-8 33051706
45. Fischgrund J.S. Rhyne A. Macadaeg K. Moore G. Kamrava E. Yeung C. Truumees E. Schaufele M. Yuan P. DePalma M. Long-term outcomes following intraosseous basivertebral nerve ablation for the treatment of chronic low back pain: 5-year treatment arm results from a prospective randomized double-blind sham-controlled multi-center study Eur. Spine J. 2020 29 1925 1934 10.1007/s00586-020-06448-x 32451777
46. Kim H.S. Wu P.H. Jang I.-T. Lumbar Degenerative Disease Part 1: Anatomy and pathophysiology of intervertebral discogenic pain and radiofrequency ablation of basivertebral and sinuvertebral nerve treatment for chronic discogenic back pain: A prospective case series and review of literature Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2020 21 1483 10.3390/ijms21041483 PMC7073116 32098249
47. Markman J.D. Rhyne A.L. Sasso R.C. Patel A.A. Hsu W.K. Fischgrund J.S. Edidin A.A. Vajkoczy P. Association between opioid use and patient-reported outcomes in a randomized trial evaluating basivertebral nerve ablation for the relief of chronic low back pain Neurosurgery 2019 86 343 347 10.1093/neuros/nyz093 31034561
48. Khalil J.G. Smuck M. Koreckij T. Keel J. Beall D. Goodman B. Kalapos P. Nguyen D. Garfin S. INTRACEPT Trial Investigators A prospective, randomized, multicenter study of intraosseous basivertebral nerve ablation for the treatment of chronic low back pain Spine J. 2019 19 1620 1632 10.1016/j.spinee.2019.05.598 31229663
49. Fischgrund J.S. Rhyne A. Franke J. Sasso R. Kitchel S. Bae H. Yeung C. Truumees E. Schaufele M. Yuan P. Intraosseous basivertebral nerve ablation for the treatment of chronic low back pain: 2-year results from a prospective randomized double-blind sham-controlled multicenter study Int. J. Spine Surg. 2019 13 110 119 10.14444/6015 31131209 PMC6510180
50. Truumees E. Macadaeg K. Pena E. Arbuckle J. Gentile J. Funk R. Singh D. Vinayek S. A prospective, open-label, single-arm, multi-center study of intraosseous basivertebral nerve ablation for the treatment of chronic low back pain Eur. Spine J. 2019 28 1594 1602 10.1007/s00586-019-05995-2 31115683
51. Kim H.S. Adsul N. Yudoyono F. Paudel B. Kim K.J. Choi S.H. Kim J.H. Chung S.K. Choi J.-H. Jang J.-S. Transforaminal epiduroscopic basivertebral nerve laser ablation for chronic low back pain associated with modic changes: A preliminary open-label study Pain Res. Manag. 2018 2018 6857983 10.1155/2018/6857983 30186540 PMC6112211
52. Fischgrund J.S. Rhyne A. Franke J. Sasso R. Kitchel S. Bae H. Yeung C. Truumees E. Schaufele M. Yuan P. Intraosseous basivertebral nerve ablation for the treatment of chronic low back pain: A prospective randomized double-blind sham-controlled multi-center study Eur. Spine J. 2018 27 1146 1156 10.1007/s00586-018-5496-1 29423885
53. Becker S. Hadjipavlou A. Heggeness M.H. Ablation of the basivertebral nerve for treatment of back pain: A clinical study Spine J. 2017 17 218 223 10.1016/j.spinee.2016.08.032 27592808
54. Raciborski F. Gasik R. Kłak A. Disorders of the spine. A major health and social problem Rheumatol. 2016 54 196 10.5114/reum.2016.62474 PMC5090028 27826174
55. Witham T.F. Khavkin Y.A. Gallia G.L. Wolinsky J.-P. Gokaslan Z.L. Surgery Insight: Current management of epidural spinal cord compression from metastatic spine disease Nat. Clin. Pract. Neurol. 2006 2 87 94 10.1038/ncpneuro0116 16932530
56. Klimo P. Schmidt M.H. Surgical management of spinal metastases Oncologist 2004 9 188 196 10.1634/theoncologist.9-2-188 15047923
57. Coleman R.E. Clinical features of metastatic bone disease and risk of skeletal morbidity Clin. Cancer Res. 2006 12 6243s 6249s 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-06-0931 17062708
58. Coleman R.E. Metastatic bone disease: Clinical features, pathophysiology and treatment strategies Cancer Treat. Rev. 2001 27 165 176 10.1053/ctrv.2000.0210 11417967
59. Varadhachary G.R. Abbruzzese J.L. Lenzi R. Diagnostic strategies for unknown primary cancer Cancer 2004 100 1776 1785 10.1002/cncr.20202 15112256
60. Jensen A.Ø. Jacobsen J.B. Nørgaard M. Yong M. Fryzek J.P. Sørensen H.T. Incidence of bone metastases and skeletal-related events in breast cancer patients: A population-based cohort study in Denmark BMC Cancer 2011 11 1 6 10.1186/1471-2407-11-29 21261987 PMC3037922
61. Choi D. Crockard A. Bunger C. Harms J. Kawahara N. Mazel C. Melcher R. Tomita K. Global Spine Tumor Group Review of metastatic spine tumour classification and indications for surgery: The consensus statement of the Global Spine Tumour Study Group Eur. Spine J. 2010 19 215 222 10.1007/s00586-009-1252-x 20039084 PMC2899817
62. Sundaresan N. Rosen G. Boriani S. Primary malignant tumors of the spine Orthop. Clin. N. Am. 2009 40 21 36 10.1016/j.ocl.2008.10.004 19064053
63. Bayley A. Milosevic M. Blend R. Logue J. Gospodarowicz M. Boxen I. Warde P. McLean M. Catton C. Catton P. A prospective study of factors predicting clinically occult spinal cord compression in patients with metastatic prostate carcinoma Cancer 2001 92 303 310 10.1002/1097-0142(20010715)92:2<303::AID-CNCR1323>3.0.CO;2-F 11466683
64. Kim J.M. Losina E. Bono C.M. Schoenfeld A.J. Collins J.E. Katz J.N. Harris M.B. Clinical outcome of metastatic spinal cord compression treated with surgical excision ± radiation versus radiation therapy alone Spine 2012 37 78 84 10.1097/BRS.0b013e318223b9b6 21629164 PMC3876411
65. Ciftdemir M. Kaya M. Selcuk E. Yalniz E. Tumors of the spine World J. Orthop. 2016 7 109 10.5312/wjo.v7.i2.109 26925382 PMC4757655
66. Campos M. Urrutia J. Zamora T. Román J. Canessa V. Borghero Y. Palma A. Molina M. The Spine Instability Neoplastic Score: An independent reliability and reproducibility analysis Spine J. 2014 14 1466 1469 10.1016/j.spinee.2013.08.044 24275615
67. Zairi F. Vieillard M.-H. Assaker R. Spine metastases: Are minimally invasive surgical techniques living up to the hype? CNS Oncol. 2015 4 257 264 10.2217/cns.15.15 26095003 PMC6088323
68. Goetz M.P. Callstrom M.R. Charboneau J.W. Farrell M.A. Maus T.P. Welch T.J. Wond G.Y. Sloan J.A. Novotny P.J. Peterson I.A. Percutaneous image-guided radiofrequency ablation of painful metastases involving bone: A multicenter study J. Clin. Oncol. 2004 22 300 306 10.1200/JCO.2004.03.097 14722039
69. Wallace A.N. Robinson C.G. Meyer J. Tran N.D. Gangi A. Callstrom M.R. Chao S.T. Van Tine B.A. Morris J.M. Bruel B.M. The metastatic spine disease multidisciplinary working group algorithms Oncologist 2015 20 1205 10.1634/theoncologist.2015-0085 26354526 PMC4591956
70. Rosenthal D.I. Alexander A. Rosenberg A.E. Springfield D. Ablation of osteoid osteomas with a percutaneously placed electrode: A new procedure Radiology 1992 183 29 33 10.1148/radiology.183.1.1549690 1549690
71. Dupuy D.E. Liu D. Hartfeil D. Hanna L. Blume J.D. Ahrar K. Lopex R. Safram H. DiPetrillo T. Percutaneous radiofrequency ablation of painful osseous metastases Cancer 2010 116 989 997 10.1002/cncr.24837 20041484 PMC2819592
72. Dupuy D.E. Hong R. Oliver B. Goldberg S.N. Radiofrequency ablation of spinal tumors Am. J. Roentgenol. 2000 175 1263 1266 10.2214/ajr.175.5.1751263 11044019
73. Rybak L.D. Gangi A. Buy X. la Rocca Vieira R. Wittig J. Thermal ablation of spinal osteoid osteomas close to neural elements: Technical considerations Am. J. Roentgenol. 2010 195 W293 W298 10.2214/AJR.10.4192 20858792
74. Cazzato R.L. Auloge P. de Marini P. Boatta E. Koch G. Dalili D. Rao P.P. Garnon J. Gangi A. Spinal tumor ablation: Indications, techniques, and clinical management Tech. Vasc. Interv. Radiol. 2020 23 100677 10.1016/j.tvir.2020.100677 32591193
75. Hadzipasic M. Giantini-Larsen A.M. Tatsui C.E. Shin J.H. Emerging percutaneous ablative and radiosurgical techniques for treatment of spinal metastases Neurosurg. Clin. N. Am. 2020 31 141 150 10.1016/j.nec.2019.08.017 31739924
76. Tomasian A. Wallace A. Northrup B. Hillen T.J. Jennings J.W. Spine cryoablation: Pain palliation and local tumor control for vertebral metastases Am. J. Neuroradiol. 2016 37 189 195 10.3174/ajnr.A4521 26427837 PMC7960222
77. Parvinian A. Welch B.T. Callstrom M.R. Kurup A.N. Trends in musculoskeletal ablation: Emerging indications and techniques Tech. Vasc. Interv. Radiol. 2020 23 100678 10.1016/j.tvir.2020.100678 32591190
78. Lv N. Geng R. Ling F. Zhou Z. Liu M. Clinical efficacy and safety of bone cement combined with radiofrequency ablation in the treatment of spinal metastases BMC Neurol. 2020 20 1 7 10.1186/s12883-020-01998-5 33208129 PMC7672858
79. Sagoo N.S. Haider A.S. Rowe S.E. Haider M. Sharma R. Neeley O.J. Dahdaleh N.S. Adogwa O. Bagley C.A. El Ahmadieh T.Y. Microwave ablation as a treatment for spinal metastatic tumors: A systematic review World Neurosurg. 2021 148 15 23 10.1016/j.wneu.2020.12.162 33422713
80. Johnell O. Kanis J.A. Odén A. Sernbo I. Redlund-Johnell I. Petterson C. De Laet C. Jonsson B. Mortality after osteoporotic fractures Osteoporos. Int. 2004 15 38 42 10.1007/s00198-003-1490-4 14593451
81. Lau E. Ong K. Kurtz S. Schmier J. Edidin A. Mortality following the diagnosis of a vertebral compression fracture in the medicare population J. Bone Jt. Surg. Am. Vol. 2008 90 1479 1486 10.2106/JBJS.G.00675 18594096
82. Goldstein C.L. Chutkan N.B. Choma T.J. Orr R.D. Management of the elderly with vertebral compression fractures Neurosurg. 2015 77 S33 S45 10.1227/NEU.0000000000000947 26378356
83. Ong T. Kantachuvesiri P. Sahota O. Gladman J.R.F. Characteristics and outcomes of hospitalised patients with vertebral fragility fractures: A systematic review Age Ageing 2018 47 17 25 10.1093/ageing/afx079 29253103 PMC5860524
84. Ong K.L. Beall D.P. Frohbergh M. Lau E. Hirsch J.A. Were VCF patients at higher risk of mortality following the 2009 publication of the vertebroplasty “sham” trials? Osteoporos. Int. 2018 29 375 383 10.1007/s00198-017-4281-z 29063215 PMC6394540
85. Papaioannou A. Watts N.B. Kendler D.L. Yuen C.K. Adachi J.D. Ferko N. Diagnosis and management of vertebral fractures in elderly adults Am. J. Med. 2002 113 220 228 10.1016/S0002-9343(02)01190-7 12208381
86. Alexandru D. Evaluation and management of vertebral compression fractures Perm. J. 2012 16 46 10.7812/TPP/12-037 23251117 PMC3523935
87. Ferreira M.L. March L. Vertebral fragility fractures—How to treat them? Best Pract. Res. Clin. Rheumatol. 2019 33 227 235 10.1016/j.berh.2019.03.017 31547980
88. Liebsch C. Wilke H.-J. Which traumatic spinal injury creates which degree of instability? A systematic quantitative review Spine J. 2021 21 725 727 10.1016/j.spinee.2021.06.004 34116217
89. Ralston S.H. Fraser J. Diagnosis and management of osteoporosis Practitioner 2015 259 15 19 26882774
90. Whitney E. Alastra A.J. Vertebral Fracture StatPearls [Internet] StatPearls Publishing Treasure Island, FL, USA 2021 31613453
91. Das C. Baruah U. Panda A. Imaging of vertebral fractures Indian J. Endocrinol. Metab. 2014 18 295 10.4103/2230-8210.131140 24944921 PMC4056125
92. Epstein N.E. A comparison of kyphoplasty, vertebroplasty, or non-surgical treatment of traumatic/atraumatic osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures: A short review Surg. Neurol. Int. 2019 10 54 10.25259/SNI-123-2019 31528392 PMC6743696
93. Hazzard M.A. Huang K.T. Toche U.N. Ugiliweneza B. Patil C.G. Boakye M. Lad S.P. Comparison of vertebroplasty, kyphoplasty, and nonsurgical management of vertebral compression fractures and impact on us healthcare resource utilization Asian Spine J. 2014 8 605 10.4184/asj.2014.8.5.605 25346813 PMC4206810
94. Fechtenbaum J. Cropet C. Kolta S. Horlait S. Orcel P. Roux C. The severity of vertebral fractures and health-related quality of life in osteoporotic postmenopausal women Osteoporos. Int. 2005 16 2175 2179 10.1007/s00198-005-2023-0 16220230
95. Rostom S. Allali F. Bennani L. Abouqal R. Hajjaj-Hassouni N. The prevalence of vertebral fractures and health-related quality of life in postmenopausal women Rheumatol. Int. 2012 32 971 980 10.1007/s00296-010-1734-5 21243498
96. Hirsch J.A. Chandra R.V. Carter N.S. Beall D. Frohbergh M. Ong K. Number needed to treat with vertebral augmentation to save a life Am. J. Neuroradiol. 2020 41 178 182 10.3174/ajnr.A6367 31857326 PMC6975314
97. Kurra S. Metkar U. Lieberman I.H. Lavelle W.F. The effect of kyphoplasty on mortality in symptomatic vertebral compression fractures: A review Int. J. Spine Surg. 2018 12 543 548 10.14444/5066 30364815 PMC6198625
98. Liu Q. Cao J. Kong J. Effects of percutaneous kyphoplasty on bone metabolism and oxidative stress in elderly patients with osteoporotic spinal fractures J. Coll. Physicians Surg. Pak. 2019 29 37 40 10.29271/jcpsp.2019.01.37 30630567
99. Zhu R.-S. Kan S.-L. Ning G.-Z. Chen L.-X. Cao Z.-G. Jiang Z.-H. Zhang X.-L. Hu W. Which is the best treatment of osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures: Balloon kyphoplasty, percutaneous vertebroplasty, or non-surgical treatment? A Bayesian network meta-analysis Osteoporos. Int. 2019 30 287 298 10.1007/s00198-018-4804-2 30635698
100. Beall D. Lorio M.P. Yun B.M. Runa M.J. Ong K.L. Warner C.B. Review of vertebral augmentation: An updated meta-analysis of the effectiveness Int. J. Spine Surg. 2018 12 295 321 10.14444/5036 30276087 PMC6159665
101. Mattie R. Brar N. Tram J.T. McCormick Z.L. Beall D.P. Fox A. Saltychev M. Vertebral augmentation of cancer-related spinal compression fractures Spine 2021 10.1097/BRS.0000000000004093 33958537
102. Chandra R.V. Meyers P.M. Hirsch J.A. Abruzzo T. Eskey C.J. Hussain M.S. Lee S.-K. Narayanan S. Bulsara K.R. Gandhi C.D. Vertebral augmentation: Report of the standards and guidelines committee of the society of neurointerventional surgery J. NeuroInterventional Surg. 2014 6 7 15 10.1136/neurintsurg-2013-011012 24198272
103. Shonnard N.H. Berven S. Anderson P.A. Verschuyl E. Norwitz J. Shonnard N. Khor S. Wagoner D.D. Yoon E.S. Beall D.P. Appropriate management of vertebral fragility fractures: Development of a pathway based on a vertebral compression fracture registry Pain Physician 2020 23 E343 E352 32709180
104. Edidin A.A. Ong K.L. Lau E. Kurtz S.M. Mortality risk for operated and nonoperated vertebral fracture patients in the medicare population J. Bone Miner. Res. 2011 26 1617 1626 10.1002/jbmr.353 21308780
105. Edidin A.A. Ong K.L. Lau E. Kurtz S.M. Life expectancy following diagnosis of a vertebral compression fracture Osteoporos. Int. 2013 24 451 458 10.1007/s00198-012-1965-2 22422305
106. Edidin A.A. Ong K.L. Lau E. Kurtz S.M. Morbidity and mortality after vertebral fractures Spine 2015 40 1228 1241 10.1097/BRS.0000000000000992 26020845
107. Cazzato R.L. Bellone T. Scardapane M. de Marini P. Autrusseau P.-A. Auloge P. Garnon J. Jennings J.W. Gangi A. Vertebral augmentation reduces the 12-month mortality and morbidity in patients with osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures Eur. Radiol. 2021 31 8246 8255 10.1007/s00330-021-07985-9 33899142
108. Hinde K. Maingard J. Hirsch J.A. Phan K. Asadi H. Chandra R.V. Mortality outcomes of vertebral augmentation (vertebroplasty and/or balloon kyphoplasty) for osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures: A systematic review and meta-analysis Radiology 2020 295 96 103 10.1148/radiol.2020191294 32068503
109. Hopkins T.J. Eggington S. Quinn M. Nichols-Ricker C.I. Cost-effectiveness of balloon kyphoplasty and vertebroplasty versus conservative medical management in the USA Osteoporos. Int. 2020 31 2461 2471 10.1007/s00198-020-05513-x 32656632 PMC7661420
110. Svedbom A. Alvares L. Cooper C. Marsh D. Ström O. Balloon kyphoplasty compared to vertebroplasty and nonsurgical management in patients hospitalised with acute osteoporotic vertebral compression fracture: A UK cost-effectiveness analysis Osteoporos. Int. 2013 24 355 367 10.1007/s00198-012-2102-y 22890362 PMC3691631
111. Fras C. Kravetz P. Mody D.R. Heggeness M.H. Substance P-containing nerves within the human vertebral body Spine J. 2003 3 63 67 10.1016/S1529-9430(02)00455-2 14589248
112. Bailey J.F. Liebenberg E. Degmetich S. Lotz J.C. Innervation patterns of PGP 9.5-positive nerve fibers within the human lumbar vertebra J. Anat. 2011 218 263 270 10.1111/j.1469-7580.2010.01332.x 21223256 PMC3058212
113. Shayota B. Wong T.L. Fru D. David G. Iwanaga J. Loukas M. Tubbs R.S. A comprehensive review of the sinuvertebral nerve with clinical applications Anat. Cell Biol. 2019 52 128 133 10.5115/acb.2019.52.2.128 31338228 PMC6624329
114. Tzika M. Paraskevas G.K. Piagkou M. Papatolios A.K. Natsis K. Basivertebral foramina of true vertebrae: Morphometry, topography and clinical considerations Surg. Radiol. Anat. 2021 43 1 19 10.1007/s00276-021-02690-0 33598754
115. Lorio M. Clerk-Lamalice O. Beall D.P. Julien T. International society for the advancement of spine surgery guideline—intraosseous ablation of the basivertebral nerve for the relief of chronic low back pain Int. J. Spine Surg. 2020 14 18 10.14444/7002 32128298 PMC7043835
116. Tieppo F.V. Sayed D. Basivertebral Nerve Ablation StatPearls [Internet] StatPearls Publishing Treasure Island, FL, USA 2021 34283493
117. Weishaupt D. Zanetti M. Hodler J. Min K. Fuchs B. Pfirrmann C.W.A. Boos N. Painful lumbar disk derangement: Relevance of endplate abnormalities at MR imaging Radiology 2001 218 420 427 10.1148/radiology.218.2.r01fe15420 11161156
118. Kuisma M. Karppinen J. Niinimäki J. Ojala R. Haapea M. Heliövaara M. Korpelainen R. Taimela S. Natri A. Tervonen O. Modic changes in endplates of lumbar vertebral bodies Spine 2007 32 1116 1122 10.1097/01.brs.0000261561.12944.ff 17471095
119. Jensen R.K. Leboeuf-Yde C. Is the presence of Modic changes associated with the outcomes of different treatments? A systematic critical review BMC Musculoskelet. Disord. 2011 12 1 6 10.1186/1471-2474-12-183 21831312 PMC3162945
120. Modic M.T. Steinberg P.M. Ross J.S. Masaryk T.J. Carter J.R. Degenerative disk disease: Assessment of changes in vertebral body marrow with MR imaging Radiology 1988 166 193 199 10.1148/radiology.166.1.3336678 3336678
121. Kjaer P. Korsholm L. Bendix T. Sorensen J.S. Leboeuf-Yde C. Modic changes and their associations with clinical findings Eur. Spine J. 2006 15 1312 1319 10.1007/s00586-006-0185-x 16896838 PMC2438570
122. Albert H.B. Kjaer P. Jensen T.S. Sorensen J.S. Bendix T. Manniche C. Modic changes, possible causes and relation to low back pain Med. Hypotheses 2008 70 361 368 10.1016/j.mehy.2007.05.014 17624684
123. Lotz J.C. Fields A.J. Liebenberg E.C. The role of the vertebral end plate in low back pain Glob. Spine J. 2013 3 153 163 10.1055/s-0033-1347298 24436866 PMC3854605
124. Järvinen J. Karppinen J. Niinimäki J. Haapea M. Grönblad M. Luoma K. Rinne E. Association between changes in lumbar Modic changes and low back symptoms over a two-year period BMC Musculoskelet. Disord. 2015 16 1 8 10.1186/s12891-015-0540-3 25897658 PMC4413535
125. Jensen T.S. Karppinen J. Sorensen J.S. Niinimäki J. Leboeuf-Yde C. Vertebral endplate signal changes (Modic change): A systematic literature review of prevalence and association with non-specific low back pain Eur. Spine J. 2008 17 1407 1422 10.1007/s00586-008-0770-2 18787845 PMC2583186
126. DePalma M.J. Ketchum J.M. Saullo T. What is the source of chronic low back pain and does age play a role? Pain Med. 2011 12 224 233 10.1111/j.1526-4637.2010.01045.x 21266006
127. Jensen R.K. Leboeuf-Yde C. Wedderkopp N. Sorensen J.S. Manniche C. Rest versus exercise as treatment for patients with low back pain and Modic changes. a randomized controlled clinical trial BMC Med. 2012 10 1 3 10.1186/1741-7015-10-22 22376791 PMC3348080
128. Mok F.P.S. Samartzis D. Karppinen J. Fong D.Y.T. Luk K.D.K. Cheung K.M.C. Modic changes of the lumbar spine: Prevalence, risk factors, and association with disc degeneration and low back pain in a large-scale population-based cohort Spine J. 2016 16 32 41 10.1016/j.spinee.2015.09.060 26456851
129. Herlin C. Kjaer P. Espeland A. Skouen J.S. Leboeuf-Yde C. Karppinen J. Niinimaki J. Sorensen J.S. Storheim K. Jensen T.S. Modic changes—Their associations with low back pain and activity limitation: A systematic literature review and meta-analysis PLoS ONE 2018 13 e0200677 10.1371/journal.pone.0200677 30067777 PMC6070210
130. Mera Y. Teraguchi M. Hashizume H. Oka H. Muraki S. Akune T. Kawaguchi H. Nakamura K. Tamai H. Tanaka S. Association between types of Modic changes in the lumbar region and low back pain in a large cohort: The Wakayama spine study Eur. Spine J. 2021 30 1011 1017 10.1007/s00586-020-06618-x 33037486
131. Applebaum A. Nessim A. Cho W. Modic Change: An emerging complication in the aging population Clin. Spine Surg. 2021 10.1097/BSD.0000000000001168 33769981
132. Conger A. Schuster N.M. Cheng D.S. Sperry B.P. Joshi A.B. Haring R.S. Duszynski B. McCormick Z.L. The effectiveness of intraosseous basivertebral nerve radiofrequency neurotomy for the treatment of chronic low back pain in patients with modic changes: A systematic review Pain Med. 2021 22 1039 1054 10.1093/pm/pnab040 33544851
133. Nguyen K.M.L. Nguyen D.T.D. Minimally invasive treatment for degenerative lumbar spine Tech. Vasc. Interv. Radiol. 2020 23 100700 10.1016/j.tvir.2020.100700 33308584
134. Urits I. Noor N. Johal A.S. Leider J. Brinkman J. Fackler N. Vij N. An D. Cornett E.M. Kaye A.D. Basivertebral nerve ablation for the treatment of vertebrogenic pain Pain Ther. 2021 10 39 53 10.1007/s40122-020-00211-2 33128702 PMC8119576
135. Michalik A. Conger A. Smuck M. Maus T.P. McCormick Z.L. Intraosseous basivertebral nerve radiofrequency ablation for the treatment of vertebral body endplate low back pain: Current evidence and future directions Pain Med. 2021 22 S24 S30 10.1093/pm/pnab117 34308955
136. Tieppo Francio V. Sherwood D. Twohey E. Barndt B. Pagan-Rosado R. Eubanks J. Sayed D. Developments in minimally invasive surgical options for vertebral pain: Basivertebral nerve ablation—A narrative review J. Pain Res. 2021 14 1887 10.2147/JPR.S287275 34188535 PMC8236249