-
Global Spine Journal Jun 2024Systematic review and meta-analysis. (Review)
Review
Mechanical Vertebral Body Augmentation Versus Conventional Balloon Kyphoplasty for Osteoporotic Thoracolumbar Compression Fractures: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Outcomes.
STUDY DESIGN
Systematic review and meta-analysis.
OBJECTIVE
Surgical management of osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures (OVCFs) has traditionally consisted of vertebroplasty or kyphoplasty procedures. Mechanical percutaneous vertebral body augmentation (MPVA) systems have recently been introduced as alternatives to traditional methods. However, the effectiveness of MPVA systems vs conventional augmentation techniques for OVCFs remains unclear. This serves as the premise for this study.
METHODS
A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted as per the guidelines. Studies of interest included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) which directly compared patient outcomes following kyphoplasty to patients treated with MPVA systems. Clinical and radiological findings were collated and compared for significance between cohorts.
RESULTS
6 RCTs were identified with 1024 patients total. The mean age of all patients was 73.5 years. 17% of the cohort were male, 83% were female. 515 patients underwent kyphoplasty and 509 underwent mechanical vertebral body augmentation using MPVA systems. MPVAs showed similar efficacy for restoration of vertebral body height ( = .18), total complications ( = .36), cement extravasation ( = .58) and device-related complications ( = .06). MPVAs also showed reduced rates of all new fractures (16.4% vs 22.2%; = .17) and adjacent fractures (14.7% vs 18.9%; = .23), with improved visual analogue scale (VAS) scores at 6-month ( = .13).
CONCLUSION
The results of this meta-analysis highlight no significant improvement in clinical or radiological outcomes for MPVA systems when compared to balloon kyphoplasty for vertebral body augmentation. Further research is needed to establish a true benefit over traditional operative methods.
PubMed: 38889443
DOI: 10.1177/21925682241261988 -
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 -
Joint Diseases and Related Surgery Jan 2024The study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of percutaneous kyphoplasty (PKP) and vertebral body stenting (VBS) in the treatment of osteoporotic vertebral... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Comparison of clinical and radiological outcomes of vertebral body stenting versus percutaneous kyphoplasty for the treatment of osteoporotic vertebral compression fracture: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
OBJECTIVES
The study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of percutaneous kyphoplasty (PKP) and vertebral body stenting (VBS) in the treatment of osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures (OVCFs) and evaluate the clinical efficacy, Cobb angle correction, and cement leakage associated with both methods for OVCFs.
PATIENTS AND METHODS
A systematic search was conducted in PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Medline, China National Knowledge, and Wanfang Data for clinical studies comparing VBS with PKP for OVCF up to May 2023. The meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager 5.3, with a focus on evaluating clinical and radiologic outcomes.
RESULTS
A total of eight eligible clinical studies were included in this meta-analysis. In terms of clinical outcomes, VBS was found to have a longer surgical time compared to PKP (standard mean difference [SMD]=1.06 min; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.20, 1.92; p=0.02). However, VBS demonstrated comparable blood loss to PKP (SMD =0.00 mL; 95% CI: -0.45, 0.45; p=0.99). Additionally, VBS showed slight superiority in alleviating back pain as measured by the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) (SMD=-0.38; 95% CI: -0.63, -0.12; p=0.004), as well as in improving functional disability based on the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) (SMD= -0.28; 95% CI: -0.54, -0.03; p=0.03). Radiographically, VBS achieved better Cobb angle correction compared to PKP (SMD= -1.00; 95% CI: -1.48, -0.51; p<0.0001), while there was no significant difference in cement leakage between VBS and PKP (odds ratio=0.81; 95% CI: 0.21, 3.14; p=0.76).
CONCLUSION
The findings suggest that VBS has a comparable clinical outcome to PKP based on operation time, intraoperative blood loss, VAS, and ODI. Furthermore, VBS showed slightly better maintenance of Cobb angle correction, whereas VBS did not demonstrate a significant advantage over PKP in terms of cement leakage.
Topics: Humans; Kyphoplasty; Fractures, Compression; Spinal Fractures; Vertebral Body; Osteoporotic Fractures; Bone Cements
PubMed: 38108184
DOI: 10.52312/jdrs.2023.1356 -
Medicine Nov 2023To investigate the effect of Vertebral augmentation (VA) in the treatment of single-level osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures (OVCFs) on new vertebral fractures. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
The risk of new vertebral fracture after percutaneous vertebral augmentation in patients suffering from single-level osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures: A meta-analysis and systematic review.
BACKGROUND
To investigate the effect of Vertebral augmentation (VA) in the treatment of single-level osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures (OVCFs) on new vertebral fractures.
METHODS
Electronic databases Pubmed, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched from database creation to 5 September 2022. Eligible studies had to use VA as an intervention and conservative treatment as a control group. Studies had to explicitly report whether new vertebral fractures occurred during follow-up. Data were extracted by multiple investigators. Data were pooled using random or fixed effects models depending on the degree of heterogeneity.
RESULTS
Of the 682 articles screened, 7 met the inclusion criteria and were included in the analysis, giving a total of 1240 patients. Meta-analysis showed that VA (OR = 2.10, 95% CI: 1.35-3.28, P = .001) increased the risk of new postoperative vertebral fractures compared with conservative treatment. Subgroup analyses showed that the risk was greater in the group with a follow-up time greater than 1 year (OR = 2.57, 95% CI: 1.06-6.26, P = .001). Compared with conservative treatment, VA (OR = 2.17, 95% CI: 1.23-3.82, P = .007) increased the risk of postoperative adjacent vertebral fracture.
CONCLUSION SUBSECTIONS
VA is associated with an increased risk of new vertebral fractures and adjacent vertebral fractures following single-level OVCFs. With longer follow-ups, new vertebral fractures may be more significant. Clinical surgeons should pay attention to long-term postoperative complications and choose treatment carefully.
Topics: Humans; Spinal Fractures; Fractures, Compression; Kyphoplasty; Vertebroplasty; Osteoporotic Fractures; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 37986316
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000035749 -
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 -
BMJ Open Jul 2023Although there is substantial clinical evidence on the safety and effectiveness of vertebral augmentation for osteoporotic vertebral fractures, cost-effectiveness is...
OBJECTIVE
Although there is substantial clinical evidence on the safety and effectiveness of vertebral augmentation for osteoporotic vertebral fractures, cost-effectiveness is less well known. The objective of this study is to provide a systematic review of cost-effectiveness studies and policy-based willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds for different vertebral augmentation (VA) procedures, vertebroplasty (VP) and balloon kyphoplasty (BK), for osteoporotic vertebral fractures (OVFs).
DESIGN
A systematic review targeting cost-effectiveness studies of VA procedures for OVFs.
DATA SOURCES
Six bibliographic databases were searched from inception up to May 2021.
ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR STUDY SELECTION
Studies were eligible if meeting all predefined criteria: (1) VP or BK intervention, (2) OVFs and (3) cost-effectiveness study. Articles not written in English, abstracts, editorials, reviews and those reporting only cost data were excluded.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
Information was extracted on study characteristics, cost-effective estimates, summary decisions and payer WTP thresholds. Incremental cost-effective ratio (ICER) was the main outcome measure. Studies were summarised by a structured narrative synthesis organised by comparisons with conservative management (CM). Two independent reviewers assessed the quality (risk of bias) of the systematic review and cost-effectiveness studies by peer-reviewed checklists.
RESULTS
We identified 520 references through database searching and 501 were excluded as ineligible by titles and abstract. Ten reports were identified as eligible from 19 full-text reviews. ICER for VP versus CM evaluated as cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) ranged from €22 685 (*US$33 395) in Netherlands to £-2240 (*US$-3273), a cost-saving in the UK. ICERs for BK versus CM ranged from £2706 (*US$3954) in UK to kr600 000 (*US$90 910) in Sweden. ICERs were within payer WTP thresholds for a QALY based on historical benchmarks.
CONCLUSIONS
Both VP and BK were judged cost-effective alternatives to CM for OVFs in economic studies and were within WTP thresholds in multiple healthcare settings.
Topics: Humans; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Vertebroplasty; Kyphoplasty; Spinal Fractures; Outcome Assessment, Health Care; Osteoporotic Fractures
PubMed: 37491092
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2022-062832 -
Zeitschrift Fur Orthopadie Und... Dec 2023To summarize the literature and compare the advantages and disadvantages of the unilateral transverse process-pedicle approach (UTPA) and conventional transpedicular... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
PURPOSE
To summarize the literature and compare the advantages and disadvantages of the unilateral transverse process-pedicle approach (UTPA) and conventional transpedicular approach (CTPA) vertebral augmentation in the treatment of osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures (OVCF).
METHODS
A single researcher performed a systematic literature review using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Online scientific databases were searched in September 2021 for English- and Chinese-language publications. A series of comparative studies were included, with UTPA as the main intervention and CTPA as the comparison indicator. A meta-analysis was performed for studies that reported clinical outcome indicators. The χ was used to study heterogeneity between trials, and the I statistic was calculated to estimate variation across studies.
RESULTS
A total of eight studies were included for meta-analysis, all of which were observational studies with mixed bias risk. There were 613 subjects in the UTPA group and 488 subjects in the CTPA group. The results of the meta-analysis showed that there was no difference between the UTPA group and the CTPA group in terms of visual analogue scale scores (p = 0.31), Oswestry Disability Index scores (p = 0.50), correction of kyphosis angle (p = 0.65), and the amount of bone cement (p = 0.13), but the UTPA group had a shorter operative time (p < 0.001), bone cement leakage rates (p = 0.02), and fluoroscopy times than the CTPA group (p < 0.001). Partial analysis results had a high risk of bias, and the most common source of bias was that there was high heterogeneity between studies, and the sensitivity can only be reduced by a random effect model, and some studies (four items) did not clearly describe the confounders that they controlled.
CONCLUSION
The limited evidence obtained in this study proves that the new puncture method does not have more advantages than the traditional technique, so it is no longer meaningful to continue to obsess over the impact of the puncture method on surgical outcome.
Topics: Humans; Kyphoplasty; Spinal Fractures; Fractures, Compression; Bone Cements; Spine; Vertebroplasty; Osteoporotic Fractures; Treatment Outcome; Retrospective Studies
PubMed: 35378564
DOI: 10.1055/a-1785-5698