-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2018Percutaneous vertebroplasty remains widely used to treat osteoporotic vertebral fractures although our 2015 Cochrane review did not support its role in routine practice. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Percutaneous vertebroplasty remains widely used to treat osteoporotic vertebral fractures although our 2015 Cochrane review did not support its role in routine practice.
OBJECTIVES
To update the available evidence of the benefits and harms of vertebroplasty for treatment of osteoporotic vertebral fractures.
SEARCH METHODS
We updated the search of CENTRAL, MEDLINE and Embase and trial registries to 15 November 2017.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of adults with painful osteoporotic vertebral fractures, comparing vertebroplasty with placebo (sham), usual care, or another intervention. As it is least prone to bias, vertebroplasty compared with placebo was the primary comparison. Major outcomes were mean overall pain, disability, disease-specific and overall health-related quality of life, patient-reported treatment success, new symptomatic vertebral fractures and number of other serious adverse events.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodologic procedures expected by Cochrane.
MAIN RESULTS
Twenty-one trials were included: five compared vertebroplasty with placebo (541 randomised participants), eight with usual care (1136 randomised participants), seven with kyphoplasty (968 randomised participants) and one compared vertebroplasty with facet joint glucocorticoid injection (217 randomised participants). Trial size varied from 46 to 404 participants, most participants were female, mean age ranged between 62.6 and 81 years, and mean symptom duration varied from a week to more than six months.Three placebo-controlled trials were at low risk of bias and two were possibly susceptible to performance and detection bias. Other trials were at risk of bias for several criteria, most notably due to lack of participant and personnel blinding.Compared with placebo, high- to moderate-quality evidence from five trials (one with incomplete data reported) indicates that vertebroplasty provides no clinically important benefits with respect to pain, disability, disease-specific or overall quality of life or treatment success at one month. Evidence for quality of life and treatment success was downgraded due to possible imprecision. Evidence was not downgraded for potential publication bias as only one placebo-controlled trial remains unreported. Mean pain (on a scale zero to 10, higher scores indicate more pain) was five points with placebo and 0.6 points better (0.2 better to 1 better) with vertebroplasty, an absolute pain reduction of 6% (2% better to 10% better, minimal clinical important difference is 15%) and relative reduction of 9% (3% better to14% better) (five trials, 535 participants). Mean disability measured by the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (scale range zero to 23, higher scores indicate worse disability) was 14.2 points in the placebo group and 1.7 points better (0.3 better to 3.1 better) in the vertebroplasty group, absolute improvement 7% (1% to 14% better), relative improvement 10% better (3% to 18% better) (three trials, 296 participants).Disease-specific quality of life measured by the Quality of Life Questionnaire of the European Foundation for Osteoporosis (QUALEFFO) (scale zero to 100, higher scores indicating worse quality of life) was 62 points in the placebo group and 2.75 points (3.53 worse to 9.02 better) in the vertebroplasty group, absolute change: 3% better (4% worse to 9% better), relative change: 5% better (6% worse to 15% better (two trials, 175 participants). Overall quality of life (European Quality of Life (EQ5D), zero = death to 1 = perfect health, higher scores indicate greater quality of life) was 0.38 points in the placebo group and 0.05 points better (0.01 better to 0.09 better) in the vertebroplasty group, absolute improvement: 5% (1% to 9% better), relative improvement: 18% (4% to 32% better) (three trials, 285 participants). In one trial (78 participants), 9/40 (or 225 per 1000) people perceived that treatment was successful in the placebo group compared with 12/38 (or 315 per 1000; 95% CI 150 to 664) in the vertebroplasty group, RR 1.40 (95% CI 0.67 to 2.95), absolute difference: 9% more reported success (11% fewer to 29% more); relative change: 40% more reported success (33% fewer to 195% more).Moderate-quality evidence (low number of events) from seven trials (four placebo, three usual care, 1020 participants), up to 24 months follow-up, indicates we are uncertain whether vertebroplasty increases the risk of new symptomatic vertebral fractures (70/509 (or 130 per 1000; range 60 to 247) observed in the vertebroplasty group compared with 59/511 (120 per 1000) in the control group; RR 1.08 (95% CI 0.62 to 1.87)).Similarly, moderate-quality evidence (low number of events) from five trials (three placebo, two usual care, 821 participants), indicates uncertainty around the risk of other serious adverse events (18/408 or 76 per 1000, range 6 to 156) in the vertebroplasty group compared with 26/413 (or 106 per 1000) in the control group; RR 0.64 (95% CI 0.36 to 1.12). Notably, serious adverse events reported with vertebroplasty included osteomyelitis, cord compression, thecal sac injury and respiratory failure.Our subgroup analyses indicate that the effects did not differ according to duration of pain ≤ 6 weeks versus > 6 weeks. Including data from the eight trials that compared vertebroplasty with usual care in a sensitivity analyses altered the primary results, with all combined analyses displaying considerable heterogeneity.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Based upon high- to moderate-quality evidence, our updated review does not support a role for vertebroplasty for treating acute or subacute osteoporotic vertebral fractures in routine practice. We found no demonstrable clinically important benefits compared with placebo (sham procedure) and subgroup analyses indicated that the results did not differ according to duration of pain ≤ 6 weeks versus > 6 weeks.Sensitivity analyses confirmed that open trials comparing vertebroplasty with usual care are likely to have overestimated any benefit of vertebroplasty. Correcting for these biases would likely drive any benefits observed with vertebroplasty towards the null, in keeping with findings from the placebo-controlled trials.Numerous serious adverse events have been observed following vertebroplasty. However due to the small number of events, we cannot be certain about whether or not vertebroplasty results in a clinically important increased risk of new symptomatic vertebral fractures and/or other serious adverse events. Patients should be informed about both the high- to moderate-quality evidence that shows no important benefit of vertebroplasty and its potential for harm.
Topics: Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Bone Cements; Female; Fractures, Compression; Glucocorticoids; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Osteoporotic Fractures; Pain Measurement; Pain, Postoperative; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Spinal Fractures; Vertebroplasty
PubMed: 29618171
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006349.pub3 -
Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and... Mar 2022Percutaneous vertebroplasty (PVP) and kyphoplasty (PKP) have been widely used to treat osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures (OVCF), but the risk of vertebral... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Risk factors of vertebral re-fracture after PVP or PKP for osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures, especially in Eastern Asia: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
OBJECTIVE
Percutaneous vertebroplasty (PVP) and kyphoplasty (PKP) have been widely used to treat osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures (OVCF), but the risk of vertebral re-fracture after PVP/PKP remains controversial. This study aims to investigate the incidence and risk factors of vertebral re-fracture after PVP/PKP.
METHODS
Relevant literatures published up to November 2021 were collected from PubMed, Embase and Web of Science. A meta-analysis was performed to extract data associated with risk factors of SVCF following the PRISMA guidelines. Also, pooled odds ratio (OR) or weighted mean difference (WMD) with 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated.
RESULTS
A total of 23 studies, encompassing 9372 patients with OVCF, met the inclusion criteria. 1255 patients (13.39%) suffered re-fracture after PVP/PKP surgery. A total of 22 studies were from Eastern Asia and only 1 study was from Europe. Female sex (OR = 1.34, 95%CI 1.09-1.64, P = 0.006), older age (WMD = 2.04, 95%CI 0.84-3.24, P = 0.001), lower bone mineral density (BMD, WMD = - 0.38, 95%CI - 0.49-0.26, P < 0.001) and bone cement leakages (OR = 2.05, 95% CI 1.40-3.00, P < 0.001) increased the risk of SVCF. The results of subgroup analysis showed the occurrence of re-fracture was significantly associated with gender (P = 0.002), age (P = 0.001) and BMD (P < 0.001) in Eastern Asia. Compared with the unfractured group, anterior-to-posterior vertebral body height ratio (AP ratio, WMD = 0.06, 95%CI 0.00-0.12, P = 0.037) and visual analog scale score (VAS, WMD = 0.62, 95%CI 0.09-1.15, P = 0.022) were higher in the refracture group, and kyphotic angle correction ratio (Cobb ratio, WMD = - 0.72, 95%CI - 1.26-0.18, P = 0.008) was smaller in Eastern Asia. In addition, anti-osteoporosis treatment (OR = 0.40, 95% CI 0.27-0.60, P < 0.001) could be a protective factor.
CONCLUSION
The main factors associated with re-fracture after PVP/PKP are sex, age, bone mineral density, AP ratio, Cobb ratio, VAS score, bone cement leakage and anti-osteoporosis treatment, especially in Eastern Asia.
Topics: Bone Cements; Female; Fractures, Compression; Humans; Kyphoplasty; Osteoporotic Fractures; Reoperation; Risk Factors; Spinal Fractures; Treatment Outcome; Vertebroplasty
PubMed: 35279177
DOI: 10.1186/s13018-022-03038-z -
Pain Physician May 2023Percutaneous balloon kyphoplasty (PKP) is widely used to treat osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures (OVCFs). In addition to rapid and effective pain relief, the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Percutaneous balloon kyphoplasty (PKP) is widely used to treat osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures (OVCFs). In addition to rapid and effective pain relief, the ability to recover the lost height of fractured vertebral bodies and reduce the risk for complications are believed to be the main advantages of this procedure. However, there is no consensus on the appropriate surgical timing for PKP.
OBJECTIVES
This study systematically evaluated the relationship between the surgical timing of PKP and clinical outcomes to provide more evidence for clinicians to choose the intervention timing.
STUDY DESIGN
Systematic review and meta-analysis.
METHODS
The PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases were systematically searched for relevant randomized controlled trials and prospective, and retrospective cohort trials published up to November 13, 2022. All included studies explored the influence of PKP intervention timing for OVCFs. Data regarding clinical and radiographic outcomes and complications were extracted and analyzed.
RESULTS
Thirteen studies involving 930 patients with symptomatic OVCFs were included. Most patients with symptomatic OVCFs achieved rapid and effective pain relief after PKP. In comparison to delayed PKP intervention, early PKP intervention was associated with similar or better outcomes in terms of pain relief, improvement of function, restoration of vertebral height, and correction of kyphosis deformity. The meta-analysis results showed there was no significant difference in cement leakage rate between early PKP and late PKP (odds ratio [OR] = 1.60, 95% CI, 0.97-2.64, P = 0.07), whereas delayed PKP had a higher risk for adjacent vertebral fractures (AVFs) than early PKP (OR = 0.31, 95% CI: 0.13-0.76, P = 0.01).
LIMITATIONS
The number of included studies was small, and the overall quality of the evidence was very low.
CONCLUSIONS
PKP is an effective treatment for symptomatic OVCFs. Early PKP may achieve similar or better clinical and radiographic outcomes for treating OVCFs than delayed PKP. Furthermore, early PKP intervention had a lower incidence of AVFs and a similar rate of cement leakage compared with delayed PKP. Based on current evidence, early PKP intervention might be more beneficial to patients.
Topics: Humans; Kyphoplasty; Fractures, Compression; Spinal Fractures; Retrospective Studies; Prospective Studies; Osteoporotic Fractures; Treatment Outcome; Bone Cements; Pain
PubMed: 37192225
DOI: No ID Found -
Journal of Pain Research 2022This systematic review comprehensively compared balloon kyphoplasty and vertebroplasty with respect to height restoration and pain relief. (Review)
Review
PURPOSE OF REVIEW
This systematic review comprehensively compared balloon kyphoplasty and vertebroplasty with respect to height restoration and pain relief.
RECENT FINDINGS
PRISMA guidelines were utilized to compare balloon kyphoplasty and vertebroplasty, focusing on the primary outcome of height restoration and the secondary outcomes of pain relief and functionality. A total of 33 randomized controlled trials were included; 20 reviewed balloon kyphoplasty, 7 reviewed vertebroplasty, and 6 compared vertebroplasty to balloon kyphoplasty. Both treatments restored some vertebral body height and showed benefits in pain reduction and improved patient-reported functionality.
SUMMARY
Balloon kyphoplasty and vertebroplasty are effective treatments for vertebral compression fractures and this review suggests that balloon kyphoplasty may be favored for vertebral height restoration. Further studies are needed to conclude whether balloon kyphoplasty or vertebroplasty is superior for alleviating pain.
PubMed: 35509620
DOI: 10.2147/JPR.S344191 -
Orthopaedic Surgery Oct 2023This systematic review and meta-analysis is aimed to provide higher quality evidence regarding the efficacy and safety between PCVP and PVP/KP in OVCFs. We searched the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
This systematic review and meta-analysis is aimed to provide higher quality evidence regarding the efficacy and safety between PCVP and PVP/KP in OVCFs. We searched the Cochrane Library, PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase databases for all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies (cohort or case-control studies) that compare PCVP to PVP/KP for OVCFs. The Cochrane Collaboration's Risk of Bias Tool and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) were used to evaluate the quality of the RCTs and non-RCTs, respectively. Meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.4 software. A total of seven articles consisting of 562 patients with 593 diseased vertebral bodies were included. Statistically significant differences were found in the postoperative visual analog scale (VAS) at 1 day (MD = -0.11; 95% CI: [-0.21 to -0.01], p = 0.03), but not at 3 months (MD = -0.21; 95% CI: [-0.41-0.00], p = 0.05) or 6 months (MD = 0.03; 95% CI: [-0.13-0.20], p = 0.70). There was no statistically significant difference in postoperative Oswestry disability index (ODI) at 1 day (MD = -0.28; 95% CI: [-0.62-0.05], p = 0.10), 3 months (MD = -1.52; 95% CI: [-3.11-0.07], p = 0.06), or 6 months (MD = 0.18; 95% CI: [-0.13-0.48], p = 0.25). Additionally, there were no statistically significant differences in Cobb angle (MD = 0.30; 95% CI: [-1.69-2.30], p = 0.77) or anterior vertebral body height (SMD = -0.01; 95% CI: [-0.26-0.23], p = 0.92) after surgery. Statistically significant differences were found in surgical time (MD = -8.60; 95% CI: [-13.75 to -3.45], p = 0.001), cement infusion volume (MD = -0.82; 95% CI: [-1.50 to -0.14], P = 0.02), and dose of fluoroscopy (SMD = -1.22; 95% CI: [-1.84 to -0.60], p = 0.0001) between curved and noncurved techniques, especially compared to bilateral PVP. Moreover, cement leakage showed statistically significant difference (OR = 0.40; 95% CI: [0.27-0.60], p < 0.0001). Compared with PVP/KP, PCVP is superior for pain relief at short-term follow-up. Additionally, PCVP has the advantages of significantly lower surgical time, radiation exposure, bone cement infusion volume, and cement leakage incidence compared to bilateral PVP, while no statistically significant difference is found when compared with unilateral PVP or PKP. In terms of quality of life and radiologic outcomes, the effects of PCVP and PVP/KP are not significantly different. Overall, this meta-analysis reveals that PCVP was an effective and safe therapy for patients with OVCFs.
Topics: Humans; Fractures, Compression; Vertebroplasty; Kyphoplasty; Osteoporotic Fractures; Spinal Fractures; Bone Cements; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 37497571
DOI: 10.1111/os.13800 -
Ontario Health Technology Assessment... 2016Untreated vertebral compression fractures can have serious clinical consequences and impose a considerable impact on patients' quality of life and on caregivers. Since... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Untreated vertebral compression fractures can have serious clinical consequences and impose a considerable impact on patients' quality of life and on caregivers. Since non-surgical management of these fractures has limited effectiveness, vertebral augmentation procedures are gaining acceptance in clinical practice for pain control and fracture stabilization. The objective of this analysis was to determine the cost-effectiveness and budgetary impact of kyphoplasty or vertebroplasty compared with non-surgical management for the treatment of vertebral compression fractures in patients with cancer.
METHODS
We performed a systematic review of health economic studies to identify relevant studies that compare the cost-effectiveness of kyphoplasty or vertebroplasty with non-surgical management for the treatment of vertebral compression fractures in adults with cancer. We also performed a primary cost-effectiveness analysis to assess the clinical benefits and costs of kyphoplasty or vertebroplasty compared with non-surgical management in the same population. We developed a Markov model to forecast benefits and harms of treatments, and corresponding quality-adjusted life years and costs. Clinical data and utility data were derived from published sources, while costing data were derived using Ontario administrative sources. We performed sensitivity analyses to examine the robustness of the results. In addition, a 1-year budget impact analysis was performed using data from Ontario administrative sources. Two scenarios were explored: (a) an increase in the total number of vertebral augmentation procedures performed among patients with cancer in Ontario, maintaining the current proportion of kyphoplasty versus vertebroplasty; and (b) no increase in the total number of vertebral augmentation procedures performed among patients with cancer in Ontario but an increase in the proportion of kyphoplasties versus vertebroplasties.
RESULTS
The base case considered each of kyphoplasty and vertebroplasty versus non-surgical management. Kyphoplasty and vertebroplasty were associated with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $33,471 and $17,870, respectively, per quality-adjusted life-year gained. The budgetary impact of funding vertebral augmentation procedures for the treatment of vertebral compression fractures in adults with cancer in Ontario was estimated at about $2.5 million in fiscal year 2014/15. More widespread use of vertebral augmentation procedures raised total expenditures under a number of scenarios, with costs increasing by $67,302 to $913,386.
CONCLUSIONS
Our findings suggest that the use of kyphoplasty or vertebroplasty in the management of vertebral compression fractures in patients with cancer may be a cost-effective strategy at commonly accepted willingness-to-pay thresholds. Nonetheless, more widespread use of kyphoplasty (and vertebroplasty to a lesser extent) would likely be associated with net increases in health care costs.
Topics: Budgets; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Fractures, Compression; Humans; Kyphoplasty; Markov Chains; Models, Economic; Neoplasms; Ontario; Quality of Life; Quality-Adjusted Life Years; Vertebroplasty
PubMed: 27293494
DOI: No ID Found -
Annals of Saudi Medicine 2016Both kyphoplasty (KP) and vertebroplasty (VP) are effective for patients with osteoporotic vertebral compression fracture (OVCF), but which approach might be more... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Both kyphoplasty (KP) and vertebroplasty (VP) are effective for patients with osteoporotic vertebral compression fracture (OVCF), but which approach might be more effective remains unclear, so we decided to update earlier systematic reviews.
OBJECTIVE
Review and analyze studies published as of August 2015 that compared clinical outcomes and complications of KP versus VP.
DESIGN
Systematic review and meta-analysis.
SEARCH METHOD
Published reports up to August 2015 were found in PubMed, EMBASE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL).
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and prospective and retrospective cohort stud.ies comparing KP and VP in patients with OVCF.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors independently assessed the studies and extracted data.
RESULTS
Thirty-two studies involving 3274 patients fulfilled the inclusion criteria. There were significant differences between the two groups in short- and long-term postoperative changes in measures of pain intensity and dysfunction (P < .01), in anterior and middle height (P < .01), kyphotic angle (P < .01), and time to injury, but not in posterior height (P=.178). There were no significant differences in the rate of postoperative fractures including adjacent and total fractures, but cement leakage to the intraspinal space was greater in the VP group (P=.035). KP surgery took longer and required a greater volume of injected cement.
CONCLUSIONS
KR resulted in better pain relief, improvements in Oswestry dysfunction and radiographic outcomes with less cement leakage, but further RCTs are needed to verify this conclusion.
LIMITATIONS
Only four RCTs with a certain of risk of bias. Most studies were observational.
Topics: Bone Cements; Disability Evaluation; Fractures, Compression; Humans; Kyphoplasty; Operative Time; Osteoporotic Fractures; Pain Measurement; Spinal Fractures; Treatment Outcome; Vertebroplasty
PubMed: 27236387
DOI: 10.5144/0256-4947.2016.165 -
Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and... Dec 2016The aim of this meta-analysis is to examine the safety and effectiveness of unilateral percutaneous vertebroplasty (PVP) for treatment of osteoporotic vertebral... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
The aim of this meta-analysis is to examine the safety and effectiveness of unilateral percutaneous vertebroplasty (PVP) for treatment of osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures (OVCFs) compared with that of bilateral treatment.
METHODS
The multiple databases including PubMed, Springer, EMBASE, OVID, and China Journal Full-text Database were adopted to search for relevant studies in English or Chinese, and full-text articles involving comparison of unilateral and bilateral PVP surgery were reviewed. Review Manager 5.0 was adopted to estimate the effects of the results among selected articles. Forest plots, sensitivity analysis, and bias analysis for the articles included were also conducted.
RESULTS
Finally, 1043 patients were included in the 14 studies, which eventually satisfied the eligibility criteria, and unilateral and bilateral surgeries were 550 and 493, respectively. The meta-analysis suggested that there was no significant difference of VAS score, ODI score, and cement leakage rate (MD = 0.12, 95%CI [-0.03, 0.26], P = 0.11; MD = -1.28, 95%CI [-3.59, 1.04], P = 0.28; RR = 0.89, 95%CI [0.61, 1.29], P = 0.52). The surgery time of unilateral PVP is much less than that of bilateral PVP (MD = -16.67, 95%CI [-19.22, -14.12], P < 0.00001). Patients with bilateral PVP surgery have been injected more cement than patients with unilateral PVP surgery (MD = -1.55, 95%CI [-1.94, -1.16], P < 0.00001).
CONCLUSIONS
Both punctures provide excellent pain relief and improvement of life quality. We still encourage the use of the unipedicular approach as the preferred surgical technique for treatment of OVCFs due to less operation time, limited X-ray exposure, and minimal cement introduction and extravasation.
Topics: Clinical Trials as Topic; Fractures, Compression; Humans; Osteoporotic Fractures; Spinal Fractures; Vertebroplasty
PubMed: 27908277
DOI: 10.1186/s13018-016-0479-6 -
Neurospine Dec 2023We aimed to comprehensively compare surgical methods for osteoporotic vertebral compression fracture (OVCF) using systematic review and network meta-analysis to...
OBJECTIVE
We aimed to comprehensively compare surgical methods for osteoporotic vertebral compression fracture (OVCF) using systematic review and network meta-analysis to understand their effectiveness and outcomes, as current research provides limited overviews.
METHODS
We followed PRISMA (preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses) guidelines, preregistering our protocol with PROSPERO. We analyzed Englishpublished randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on adults with OVCFs that evaluated pain intensity or functionality using tools like visual analogue scale (VAS) or Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). Exclusions included non-RCTs, malignancy-related fractures, and certain interventions. Using the RoB 2 tool, we assessed bias and visualized results with Robvis. Our primary outcome was pain intensity, with secondary outcomes including disability, new fractures, and cement leakage. Results were synthesized using Stata/MP.
RESULTS
Thirty-four RCTs from 10 countries, totaling 4,384 patients, were analyzed. Shortterm VAS indicated kyphoplasty with facet joint injection (KIJ) as the top treatment at 87.7%, while unipedicular kyphoplasty (UKP) led to long-term at 74.9%. Short-term ODI favored vertebroplasty with facet joint injection (VIJ) at 98.4%, with kyphoplasty (KP) leading longterm at 66.0%. All surgical techniques were superior to conservative treatment. Vertebral augmentation devices reported the fewest new fractures and curved vertebroplasty had the least cement leakage. SUCRA (surface under the cumulative ranking) analyses suggested UKP and VIJ as top choices for postoperative pain relief, with VIJ excelling in postoperative disability improvement.
CONCLUSION
Our analysis evaluates 12 OVCF interventions, underscoring KIJ for short-term pain relief and VIJ and UKP for long-term efficacy. Notably, VIJ stands out in disability outcomes, emphasizing the need for comprehensive OVCF management.
PubMed: 38171285
DOI: 10.14245/ns.2346996.498