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.

IF 1.9 Q2 ORTHOPEDICS
Joint diseases and related surgery Pub Date : 2024-01-01 Epub Date: 2023-11-23 DOI:10.52312/jdrs.2023.1356
Ting Zhang, Yinxiao Peng, Jun Li
{"title":"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.","authors":"Ting Zhang, Yinxiao Peng, Jun Li","doi":"10.52312/jdrs.2023.1356","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Patients and methods: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":73560,"journal":{"name":"Joint diseases and related surgery","volume":"35 1","pages":"218-230"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10746898/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Joint diseases and related surgery","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.52312/jdrs.2023.1356","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/11/23 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

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.

椎体支架植入术与经皮椎体后凸成形术治疗骨质疏松性椎体压缩骨折的临床和放射学疗效比较:系统回顾和荟萃分析。
研究目的该研究旨在比较经皮椎体成形术(PKP)和椎体支架植入术(VBS)治疗骨质疏松性椎体压缩骨折(OVCFs)的疗效和安全性,并评估两种方法治疗OVCFs的临床疗效、Cobb角矫正和骨水泥渗漏情况:在PubMed、EMBASE、Cochrane Library、Medline、中国知网和万方数据中对截至2023年5月的比较VBS与PKP治疗OVCF的临床研究进行了系统检索。使用Review Manager 5.3进行荟萃分析,重点评估临床和放射学结果:本荟萃分析共纳入了八项符合条件的临床研究。在临床结果方面,VBS 的手术时间长于 PKP(标准平均差 [SMD]=1.06 分钟;95% 置信区间 [CI]:0.20, 1.92;0.20, 1.92):0.20, 1.92; p=0.02).然而,VBS的失血量与PKP相当(标准差=0.00毫升;95% 置信区间[CI]:-0.45,0.45;P=0.99)。此外,根据视觉模拟量表(VAS)(SMD=-0.38;95% CI:-0.63,-0.12;P=0.004),VBS在减轻背痛方面略胜一筹,根据奥斯韦特里残疾指数(ODI)(SMD=-0.28;95% CI:-0.54,-0.03;P=0.03),VBS在改善功能残疾方面也略胜一筹。从影像学角度看,VBS的Cobb角矫正效果优于PKP(SMD=-1.00;95% CI:-1.48,-0.51;P结论:研究结果表明,从手术时间、术中失血量、VAS和ODI来看,VBS的临床效果与PKP相当。此外,VBS在维持Cobb角矫正方面略胜一筹,而在骨水泥渗漏方面,VBS与PKP相比并无明显优势。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信