Clinical outcome of vertebroplasty alone versus short-segment posterior instrumentation with vertebroplasty in osteoporotic vertebral fracture: a propensity-score-matched analysis.

IF 2.3 Q2 ORTHOPEDICS
Borriwat Santipas, Nath Adulkasem, Korawish Mekariya, Ekkapoj Korwutthikulrangsri, Monchai Ruangchainikom, Werasak Sutipornplalangkul
{"title":"Clinical outcome of vertebroplasty alone versus short-segment posterior instrumentation with vertebroplasty in osteoporotic vertebral fracture: a propensity-score-matched analysis.","authors":"Borriwat Santipas, Nath Adulkasem, Korawish Mekariya, Ekkapoj Korwutthikulrangsri, Monchai Ruangchainikom, Werasak Sutipornplalangkul","doi":"10.31616/asj.2024.0231","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Study design: </strong>Retrospective cohort study with propensity-score-matched analysis.</p><p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To compare the efficacy of vertebroplasty (VP) versus short-segment posterior instrumentation (SS) with VP in patients with osteoporotic vertebral fractures (OVFs).</p><p><strong>Overview of literature: </strong>OVFs significantly affect the aging population, causing pain, reduced mobility, and increased dependence. Treatment guidelines vary, and a consensus on the most effective approach remains unclear. To the best of our knowledge, no previous report focused on the efficacy comparison of VP alone versus SS with VP.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The study included patients with OVFs undergoing VP with or without SS from 2017 to 2021. Baseline demographic and patient-reported outcome scores, including Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and European Quality-of-Life-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D), were collected preoperatively and 1 year postoperatively. Radiographic outcomes, including Cobb angle, sagittal angle reduction, and kyphotic progression, were assessed. Perioperative data were gathered. Propensity-score matching was conducted to compare both groups after adjusting for baseline characteristics.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>This study included 60 patients. The subsequent analyses included 19 patients in both the SS+VP group and the VP groups after matching patient cohorts across various covariates. The SS+VP group demonstrated better ODI (30.38±17.12 vs. 49.68±19.43, p=0.0025) and EQ-5D scores (0.80±0.19 vs. 0.6±0.31, p=0.0018) at 1 year postoperative. Sagittal angle correction was higher in the SS+VP group (10.63°±6.34° vs. 5.74°±5.91°, p=0.0188). The SS+VP group exhibited higher blood loss and longer operative time. Perioperative complications, kyphotic progression, adjacent fractures, and reoperation rates were similar between the two groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>SS with VP generated superior patient-reported outcomes and sagittal angle correction for OVFs when evaluated one year postoperatively compared to VP alone. Perioperative complications, kyphotic progression, adjacent fractures, and reoperation rates were similar despite increased blood loss and extended operative time.</p>","PeriodicalId":8555,"journal":{"name":"Asian Spine Journal","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Asian Spine Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.31616/asj.2024.0231","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Study design: Retrospective cohort study with propensity-score-matched analysis.

Purpose: To compare the efficacy of vertebroplasty (VP) versus short-segment posterior instrumentation (SS) with VP in patients with osteoporotic vertebral fractures (OVFs).

Overview of literature: OVFs significantly affect the aging population, causing pain, reduced mobility, and increased dependence. Treatment guidelines vary, and a consensus on the most effective approach remains unclear. To the best of our knowledge, no previous report focused on the efficacy comparison of VP alone versus SS with VP.

Methods: The study included patients with OVFs undergoing VP with or without SS from 2017 to 2021. Baseline demographic and patient-reported outcome scores, including Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and European Quality-of-Life-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D), were collected preoperatively and 1 year postoperatively. Radiographic outcomes, including Cobb angle, sagittal angle reduction, and kyphotic progression, were assessed. Perioperative data were gathered. Propensity-score matching was conducted to compare both groups after adjusting for baseline characteristics.

Results: This study included 60 patients. The subsequent analyses included 19 patients in both the SS+VP group and the VP groups after matching patient cohorts across various covariates. The SS+VP group demonstrated better ODI (30.38±17.12 vs. 49.68±19.43, p=0.0025) and EQ-5D scores (0.80±0.19 vs. 0.6±0.31, p=0.0018) at 1 year postoperative. Sagittal angle correction was higher in the SS+VP group (10.63°±6.34° vs. 5.74°±5.91°, p=0.0188). The SS+VP group exhibited higher blood loss and longer operative time. Perioperative complications, kyphotic progression, adjacent fractures, and reoperation rates were similar between the two groups.

Conclusions: SS with VP generated superior patient-reported outcomes and sagittal angle correction for OVFs when evaluated one year postoperatively compared to VP alone. Perioperative complications, kyphotic progression, adjacent fractures, and reoperation rates were similar despite increased blood loss and extended operative time.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Asian Spine Journal
Asian Spine Journal ORTHOPEDICS-
CiteScore
5.10
自引率
4.30%
发文量
108
审稿时长
24 weeks
×
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