New vertebral fractures after vertebroplasty: 2-year results from a randomised controlled trial

Truths and myths about augmentation techniques in the treatment of fragility fractures

The main event of osteoporosis is fragility fractures. Vertebral compression fractures are the most commonly fragility fracture related to osteoporosis. Our goal is to review the available literature to confirm or deny concepts learned about spinal cementation and adapt our clinical practice according to scientific evidence. In the complex world of spine surgery, constant innovations seek to improve the quality of life of patients. Among these, vertebral augmentation has emerged as an increasingly popular technique, but often shrouded in myths and misunderstandings. In this systematic review, we will thoroughly explore the truths behind vertebral augmentation, unraveling common myths and providing a clear insight into this technique. As specialists in the field, it is crucial to understand the reality surrounding these interventions to offer our patients the best possible information and make informed decisions.

Comparative Efficacy of Surgical Interventions for Osteoporotic Vertebral Compression Fractures: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis

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.

Risk of Revision After Vertebral Augmentation for Osteoporotic Vertebral Fracture: A Narrative Review

Osteoporotic vertebral fractures (OVFs) can hinder physical motor function, daily activities, and the quality of life in elderly patients when treated conservatively. Vertebral augmentation, which includes vertebroplasty and balloon kyphoplasty, is a commonly used procedure for OVFs. However, there have been reports of complications. Although serious complications are rare, there have been instances of adjacent vertebral fractures, cement dislocation, and insufficient pain relief due to cement failure, sometimes necessitating revision surgery. This narrative review discusses the common risks associated with vertebral augmentation for OVFs, such as cement leakage and adjacent vertebral fractures, and highlights the risk of revision surgery. The pooled incidence of revision surgery was 0.04 (0.02-0.06). The risks for revision are reported as follows: female sex, advanced age, diabetes mellitus, cerebrovascular disease, dementia, blindness or low vision, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, split type fracture, large angular motion, and large endplate deficit. Various treatment strategies exist for OVFs, but they remain a subject of controversy. Current literature underscores the lack of substantial evidence to guide treatment strategies based on the risks of vertebral augmentation. In cases with a high risk of failure, other surgeries and conservative treatments should also be considered as treatment options.

Secondary Fracture Rate After Vertebral Osteoporotic Compression Fracture Is Decreased by Anti-Osteoporotic Medication but Not Increased by Cement Augmentation

BACKGROUND

Painful vertebral osteoporotic compression fractures (OCFs) are often treated with cement augmentation, although controversies exist as to whether or not this increases the secondary fracture risk. Prevention of secondary fracture includes treatment of underlying osteoporosis. The purposes of this study were to determine (1) whether cement augmentation increases the rate of secondary fracture compared with nonoperative management, (2) whether anti-osteoporotic medications reduce the rate of secondary fracture, and (3) the rate of osteoporosis treatment with medications following vertebral OCF.

METHODS

The PearlDiver database was queried for all patients with a diagnosis of OCF from 2015 to 2019. Patients were excluded if they were <50 years old, had a diagnosis of spinal neoplasm or infection, or underwent lumbar fusion in the perioperative period. Secondary fracture risk was assessed using univariate and multivariate logistic regression analysis, with kyphoplasty, vertebroplasty, anti-osteoporotic medications, age, gender, and Elixhauser Comorbidity Index as variables.

RESULTS

A total of 36,145 patients were diagnosed with an OCF during the study period. Of those, 25,904 (71.7%) underwent nonoperative management and 10,241 (28.3%) underwent cement augmentation, including 1,556 who underwent vertebroplasty and 8,833 who underwent kyphoplasty. Patients who underwent nonoperative management had a secondary fracture rate of 21.8% following the initial OCF, compared with 14.5% in the vertebroplasty cohort and 18.5% in the kyphoplasty cohort, which was not a significant difference on multivariate analysis. In the entire cohort, 2,833 (7.8%) received anti-osteoporotic medications and 33,312 (92.2%) did not. The rate of secondary fracture was 10.1% in patients who received medications and 21.9% in those who did not, which was a significant difference on multivariate analysis (odds ratio = 1.23, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Cement augmentation did not alter the rate of secondary fracture, whereas anti-osteoporotic medications significantly decreased the risk of subsequent OCF by 19%. Only 7.8% of patients received a prescription for an anti-osteoporotic medication following the initial OCF.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Relationship between sarcopenia/paravertebral muscles and the incidence of vertebral refractures following percutaneous kyphoplasty: a retrospective study

Background

This study aimed to reveal the associations of osteoporotic vertebral compression refracture (OVCRF) incidence with sarcopenia and paravertebral muscles (PVM).

Methods

A total of 214 elderly patients who underwent percutaneous kyphoplasty in our hospital between January 2017 and December 2019 were analyzed. Data on possible risk factors, including sex, age, weight, height, diabetes, treated vertebral levels (thoracolumbar junction [(T10–L2]), vacuum clefts, and body mass index (BMI), were collected. Preoperative bone mineral density (BMD) and appendicular muscle mass were evaluated using dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry. Nutritional status was evaluated using the Mini Nutritional Assessment. Magnetic resonance imaging was performed to evaluate the physiological cross-sectional area of the PVM.

Results

Overall, 74 (15 men and 59 women) and 60 (55 women and 14 men) patients developed OVCRF and sarcopenia, respectively. Sarcopenia is related to advanced age, ower BMD and BMI values. Sarcopenia-related indicators (PVM fat rate, appendicular muscle mass index, grip strength) were significantly lower in the sarcopenia group. Univariate analysis showed a correlation between OVCRF and BMD, BMI, diabetes, sarcopenia, and age. Multivariate analysis suggested that fatty infiltration of the PVM, BMD, sarcopenia, diabetes, BMI, and treated vertebral level remained as the independent predictors of OVCRF (p < 0.05).

Conclusions

The association between sarcopenia and PVM as independent risk factors for OVCRF was established in this study; therefore, sarcopenia should be greatly considered in OVCRF prevention.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12891-022-05832-6.

The Effect of Vertebral Augmentation Procedure on Painful OVCFs: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

STUDY DESIGN

Meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE

To systematically compare the effectiveness and safety of vertebral augmentation procedure (VAP) with non-surgical management (NSM) for the treatment of osteoporotic vertebrate compression fractures (OVCFs).

METHODS

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses with the comparison between VAP and NSM were identified to extract randomized controlled trials from electronic database. Additionally, recently published RCTs were identified. Two researchers independently extracted the data. The primary outcome of this meta-analysis was pain relief evaluated by visual analogue scale (VAS).

RESULTS

Twenty RCTs involving 2566 patients with painful OVCFs were included. Significant differences were found between percutaneous vertebroplasty (PVP) and conservative treatment (CT) in VAS at each time point during follow-up period. The differences of VAS were not significant between PVP and sham procedure at most time points during follow-up period. In subgroup analysis based on fracture type and fracture location, significant differences of VAS were found between PVP and CT and were not found between PVP and sham procedure. In subgroup analysis of duration of back pain, significant differences were found between PVP and CT in VAS at 1 week, 3 month and 1 year. And the differences of VAS were not significant between PVP and CT at 1 month and 6 month.

CONCLUSION

BKP is considered sufficient to achieve good clinical outcomes. PVP is associated with on beneficial effect on treatment of painful OVCFs compared with sham procedure. The indication and timing of VAP need further research. More independently high-quality RCTs with sufficiently large sample sizes reporting cost-effectiveness are needed.

Analysis of risk factors related to the re-fracture of adjacent vertebral body after PKP

BACKGROUND

This study aims to investigate the risk factors of vertebral re-fracture after percutaneous kyphoplasty (PKP) for osteoporosis vertebral compression fracture (OVCF), and to provide reference for clinical prevention.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A retrospective analysis was performed on 228 OVCF patients admitted on November 6, 2013, solstice, December 14, 2018, which met the inclusion criteria. There were 35 males and 193 females, with a male-to-female ratio of 3:20, and an age of 61-89 years. All patients were treated with PKP surgery with complete clinical data, and the rate of re-fracture was calculated according to whether re-fracture occurred after surgery, divided into the re-fracture group (24 cases) and the non-refracture group (204 cases). May be associated with subsequent fracture factors (gender, age, number of surgical segment vertebral body, whether with degenerative scoliosis, whether to fight osteoporosis) into a single-factor research, then the single-factor analysis was statistically significant risk factors for multiple logistic regression analysis, further defined after PKP holds the vertebral body fracture independent risk factors. Survival analysis was performed using the time of vertebral re-fracture after PKP as the end time of follow-up, the occurrence of re-fracture after PKP as the endpoint event, and the presence or absence of degenerative lateral curvature as a variable factor.

RESULTS

All 228 vertebroplasty patients were followed up for a period of 1.8 to 63.6 months. The mean follow-up time was (28.8 ± 15.6) months, and the re-fracture rate was 10.5%. There were statistically significant differences between the re-fracture group and the non-refracture group in age, number of operative vertebral bodies, whether there was a combination of degenerative scoliosis and whether there was anti-osteoporosis treatment (P < 0.05). The results of univariate logistic regression analysis after excluding the mutual influence of various factors showed that the number of vertebral bodies and the group with lateral curvature might be the risk factors for PKP re-fracture after surgery. The above possible risk factors were included in multiple logistic regression analysis to show whether there were independent risk factors for scoliosis and vertebral re-fracture. Survival analysis showed that the mean survival time was 42.1 months, the P value was 0.00, and the mean 95% confidence interval was (34.4-49.7 months), indicating that the combination of degenerative lateral bending might be related to the occurrence of re-fracture.

CONCLUSIONS

Combined scoliosis is an independent risk factor for re-fracture after OVCF laminoplasty and a possible risk factor for re-fracture after surgery.

Association Between Bone Cement Augmentation and New Vertebral Fractures in Patients with Osteoporotic Vertebral Compression Fractures: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

PURPOSE

To investigate the association between bone cement augmentation and new vertebral fractures (VF) in patients with osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures (OVCFs).

METHODS

A literature search of PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library was conducted from 1987 to December 31, 2020, to identify randomized controlled trials that compared bone cement augmentation with non-bone cement treatments in patients with OVCFs. The clinical incidence of new VF and the risk of new adjacent vertebral fractures (AVF) after treatment were calculated. The indexes of the risk ratio or odds ratio, and 95% confidence intervals were determined with RevMan 5.2 software.

RESULTS

A total of 13 randomized controlled trials involving 1949 participants were included in the final quantitative analysis. There was no significant association between bone cement augmentation and the clinical incidence of new VF during the 6-month and 12-month follow-ups or the whole follow-up period. However, there was a significantly lower clinical incidence of new VF in patients who received bone cement augmentation compared with non-bone cement treatments during 24 months or more of follow-up. Pooled data from the relevant trials demonstrated that the risk of new AVF in bone cement augmentation was significantly higher than that in non-bone cement treatments.

CONCLUSIONS

Although the use of bone cement augmentation in OVCFs significantly increased the risk of new AVF compared with non-bone cement treatments, it was not significantly associated with a higher clinical incidence of new VF.

Invasive Treatments for Low Back Disorders

OBJECTIVE

This abbreviated version of the American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine's Low Back Disorders guideline reviews the evidence and recommendations developed for invasive treatments used to manage low back disorders.

METHODS

Comprehensive systematic literature reviews were accomplished with article abstraction, critiquing, grading, evidence table compilation, and guideline finalization by a multidisciplinary expert panel and extensive peer-review to develop evidence-based guidance. Consensus recommendations were formulated when evidence was lacking and often relied on analogy to other disorders for which evidence exists. A total of 47 high-quality and 321 moderate-quality trials were identified for invasive management of low back disorders.

RESULTS

Guidance has been developed for the invasive management of acute, subacute, and chronic low back disorders and rehabilitation. This includes 49 specific recommendations.

CONCLUSION

Quality evidence should guide invasive treatment for all phases of managing low back disorders.

Clinical and radiological subsequent fractures after vertebral augmentation for treating osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures: a meta-analysis

PURPOSE

This study aimed to identify all relevant randomized controlled trials (RCT) and prospective non-RCTs to further investigate whether percutaneous vertebral augmentation (PVA) was associated with clinical and radiological subsequent fractures on unoperated levels.

METHODS

We systematically searched PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane library, Google Scholar, web of science, and ClinicalTrial.gov from the establishment of the database to January 2020. All eligible studies comparing subsequent fractures after PVA with those after conservative treatment (CT) were incorporated. The pooled risk ratio (RR) with its 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) was used. Heterogeneity, sensitivity, and publication bias analyses were performed.

RESULTS

In all, 32 studies were included in the study: 82/512 patients (16.02%) and 58/433 patients (13.39%) had clinical subsequent fractures in the PVA group and CT group, respectively. No significant differences were observed between the two groups [RR = 1.22, 95% CI 0.70-2.12, P = 0.49]. Further, 175/837 patients (20.91%) in the PVA group and 160/828 patients (19.32%) in the CT group had radiological subsequent fractures. No significant difference was observed between groups [RR = 0.91, 95% CI 0.71-2.12, P = 1.16]. Further, no statistical difference was observed on subgroup analysis between RCTs and non-RCTs or PVP and PKP.

CONCLUSION

Our systematic review revealed that subsequent fractures on unoperated levels were not associated with PVA, regardless of whether they were clinical or radiological subsequent fractures.

Guaiacol suppresses osteoclastogenesis by blocking interactions of RANK with TRAF6 and C-Src and inhibiting NF-κB, MAPK and AKT pathways

Angelica sinensis (AS; Dang Gui), a traditional Chinese herb, has for centuries been used for the treatment of bone diseases, including osteoporosis and osteonecrosis. However, the effective ingredient and underlying mechanisms remain elusive. Here, we identified guaiacol as the active component of AS by two‐dimensional cell membrane chromatography/C18 column/time‐of‐flight mass spectrometry (2D CMC/C18 column/TOFMS). Guaiacol suppressed osteoclastogenesis and osteoclast function in bone marrow monocytes (BMMCs) and RAW264.7 cells in vitro in a dose‐dependent manner. Co‐immunoprecipitation indicated that guaiacol blocked RANK‐TRAF6 association and RANK‐C‐Src association. Moreover, guaiacol prevented phosphorylation of p65, p50, IκB (NF‐κB pathway), ERK, JNK, c‐fos, p38 (MAPK pathway) and Akt (AKT pathway), and reduced the expression levels of Cathepsin K, CTR, MMP‐9 and TRAP. Guaiacol also suppressed the expression of nuclear factor of activated T‐cells cytoplasmic 1(NFATc1) and the RANKL‐induced Ca²⁺ oscillation. In vivo, it ameliorated ovariectomy‐induced bone loss by suppressing excessive osteoclastogenesis. Taken together, our findings suggest that guaiacol inhibits RANKL‐induced osteoclastogenesis by blocking the interactions of RANK with TRAF6 and C‐Src, and by suppressing the NF‐κB, MAPK and AKT signalling pathways. Therefore, this compound shows therapeutic potential for osteoclastogenesis‐related bone diseases, including postmenopausal osteoporosis.

Development of a scoring system for predicting adjacent vertebral fracture after balloon kyphoplasty

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

The incidence of adjacent vertebral fracture (AVFs) is reported to be 10%-38% after balloon kyphoplasty. However, no reports have established a system for prediction of AVF occurrence.

PURPOSE

To establish a scoring system for predicting AVF occurrence after balloon kyphoplasty for osteoporotic vertebral fractures (OVFs).

DESIGN

A prospective cohort study.

PATIENT SAMPLE

Consecutive elderly patients aged 65 years and older who underwent balloon kyphoplasty for OVFs within 2 months after the onset.

OUTCOME MEASURES

AVF was confirmed by X-ray.

METHODS

From 2015 to 2017, 116 consecutive patients from 10 participating hospitals who underwent balloon kyphoplasty were enrolled in this study. Prior to study enrollment, each patient underwent plain X-ray, computed tomography (CT), and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the thoracic and lumbar spine. Severity of pain was subjectively assessed using a visual analog scale (VAS) based on the average level of back pain that the patient had experienced in the preceding week. After enrollment, subjects underwent balloon kyphoplasty. Quality of life was evaluated using SF-36. Patients were followed up for at least 6 months.

RESULTS

Of the 116 patients enrolled, 109 patients with all the required data at the time of enrolment and the 6-month follow-up were included in the study. A total of 32 patients (29%) showed AVFs within the 6-month follow-up. No significant differences were observed in each clinical outcome at 6-month follow-up, although higher VAS score for back pain at 1-month follow-up was observed in the AVF group (37.5) than in the non-AVF group (20.8, p<.001). Wedge angle of vertebrae before surgery was greater in the AVF group (21.6°) than in the non-AVF group (15.7°, p<.001). The change in wedge angle between pre- and postsurgery was greater in the AVF group than in the non-AVF group, whereas the change in local kyphosis was not significantly different. The multiple logistic regression model showed increased odds ratio (OR) of thoracic or thoracolumbar spine, old OVF presence, >25° kyphosis before surgery, and >10°correction for AVF. Based on this result, a simple scoring system for predicting AVF occurrence was developed. The total AVF score was calculated as the sum of the individual scores, which varied from 0 to 6. All patients with 5-6 points sustained AVF.

CONCLUSIONS

More severe wedge angle before surgery, correction degree, old OVF presence, and thoracolumbar level were predictive factors for AVF. All patients with AVF risk score of 5 or more showed AVF. This information may aid preoperative risk assessment, informed shared decision-making, and consideration of potential alternative management strategies.

The Efficacy and Safety of Vertebral Augmentation: A Second ASBMR Task Force Report

Vertebral augmentation is among the current standards of care to reduce pain in patients with vertebral fractures (VF), yet a lack of consensus regarding efficacy and safety of percutaneous vertebroplasty and kyphoplasty raises questions on what basis clinicians should choose one therapy over another. Given the lack of consensus in the field, the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research (ASBMR) leadership charged this Task Force to address key questions on the efficacy and safety of vertebral augmentation and other nonpharmacological approaches for the treatment of pain after VF. This report details the findings and recommendations of this Task Force. For patients with acutely painful VF, percutaneous vertebroplasty provides no demonstrable clinically significant benefit over placebo. Results did not differ according to duration of pain. There is also insufficient evidence to support kyphoplasty over nonsurgical management, percutaneous vertebroplasty, vertebral body stenting, or KIVA®. There is limited evidence to determine the risk of incident VF or serious adverse effects (AE) related to either percutaneous vertebroplasty or kyphoplasty. No recommendation can be made about harms, but they cannot be excluded. For patients with painful VF, it is unclear whether spinal bracing improves physical function, disability, or quality of life. Exercise may improve mobility and may reduce pain and fear of falling but does not reduce falls or fractures in individuals with VF. General and intervention-specific research recommendations stress the need to reduce study bias and address methodological flaws in study design and data collection. This includes the need for larger sample sizes, inclusion of a placebo control, more data on serious AE, and more research on nonpharmacologic interventions. Routine use of vertebral augmentation is not supported by current evidence. When it is offered, patients should be fully informed about the evidence. Anti-osteoporotic medications reduce the risk of subsequent vertebral fractures by 40-70%. © 2018 American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

Effect of Teriparatide on Subsequent Vertebral Fractures after Instrumented Fusion Surgery for Osteoporotic Vertebral Fractures with Neurological Deficits

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective case review.

PURPOSE

To assess the incidence and effect of teriparatide (TP) on subsequent vertebral fractures following a long-instrumented fusion surgery for osteoporotic vertebral fractures (OVFs).

OVERVIEW OF LITERATURE

TP treatment may be a useful strategy for patients with OVFs treated with a long-instrumented surgery.

METHODS

Overall, 47 patients who underwent long-instrumented fusion surgery (≥3 levels) for OVFs with neurological deficits between 2010 and 2013 were enrolled. The mean age of the subjects was 76 years; the study population comprised 20 males and 27 females. The mean follow-up duration was 23 months. The average of fused vertebrae was 4.9. TP was used for 19 patients who comprised the TP group. The incidence of subsequent VFs was estimated with Kaplan-Meier analyses and compared between the TP and non-TP groups using the log-rank test. Risk factors were evaluated using a Cox proportional hazards model.

RESULTS

A total of 38% (18/47 cases) of the subjects were identified with subsequent VFs. There were no significant differences in the age, sex, fused levels, presence of prevalent fractures, and correction loss of the two groups. The occurrence of subsequent VFs was lower in the TP group than in the non-TP group (16% vs. 54%, p=0.014). The log-rank test revealed that the TP treatment significantly reduced the risk of subsequent VFs (p=0.048). A Cox proportional hazards model revealed that preoperative TP treatment is only a protective factor of subsequent VFs after instrumented fusion surgery for OVFs (hazard ratio, 0.281; p=0.047).

CONCLUSIONS

In this retrospective study, pre- and postoperative TP treatment significantly reduced the incidence of subsequent VFs after instrumented fusion surgery for OVFs. A prospective randomized study is warranted to determine the efficacy of TP treatments.

Percutaneous vertebroplasty for osteoporotic vertebral compression fracture

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.Four placebo-controlled trials were at low risk of bias and one was 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 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 0.7 points better (0.3 better to 1.2 better) with vertebroplasty, an absolute pain reduction of 7% (3% better to 12% better, minimal clinical important difference is 15%) and relative reduction of 10% (4% better to 17% 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 1.5 points better (0.4 better to 2.6 better) in the vertebroplasty group, absolute improvement 7% (2% to 11% better), relative improvement 9% better (2% to 15% better) (four trials, 472 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 2.3 points better (1.4 points worse to 6.7 points better), an absolute imrovement of 2% (1% worse to 6% better); relative improvement 4% better (2% worse to 10% better) (three trials, 351 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).Low-quality evidence (downgraded due to imprecision and potential for bias from the usual-care controlled trials) indicates uncertainty around the risk estimates of harms with vertebroplasty. The incidence of new symptomatic vertebral fractures (from six trials) was 48/418 (95 per 1000; range 34 to 264)) in the vertebroplasty group compared with 31/422 (73 per 1000) in the control group; RR 1.29 (95% CI 0.46 to 3.62)). The incidence of other serious adverse events (five trials) was 16/408 (34 per 1000, range 18 to 62) in the vertebroplasty group compared with 23/413 (56 per 1000) in the control group; RR 0.61 (95% CI 0.33 to 1.10). 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 (acute versus subacute). 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

We found high- to moderate-quality evidence that vertebroplasty has no important benefit in terms of pain, disability, quality of life or treatment success in the treatment of acute or subacute osteoporotic vertebral fractures in routine practice when compared with a sham procedure. Results were consistent across the studies irrespective of the average duration of pain.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.

Review of Vertebral Augmentation: An Updated Meta-analysis of the Effectiveness

Background

To update vertebral augmentation literature by comparing outcomes between vertebroplasty (VP), balloon kyphoplasty (BKP), vertebral augmentation with implant (VAI), and nonsurgical management (NSM) for treating vertebral compression fractures (VCFs).

Methods

A PubMed literature search was conducted with keywords kyphoplasty, vertebroplasty, vertebral body stent, and vertebral augmentation AND implant for English-language articles from February 1, 2011, to November 22, 2016. Among the results, 25 met the inclusion criteria for the meta-analysis. Inclusion criteria were prospective comparative studies for mid-/lower-thoracic and lumbar VCFs enrolling at least 20 patients. Exclusion criteria included studies that were single arm, systematic reviews and meta-analyses, traumatic nonosteoporotic or cancer-related fractures, lack of clinical outcomes, or non-Level I and non-Level II studies. Standardized mean difference between baseline and end point for each outcome was calculated, and treatment groups were pooled using random effects meta-analysis.

Results

Visual analog scale pain reduction for BKP and VP was -4.05 and -3.88, respectively. VP was better than but not significantly different from NSM (-2.66), yet BKP showed significant improvement from both NSM and VAI (-2.77). The Oswestry Disability Index reduction for BKP showed a significant improvement over VAI (P < .001). There was no significant difference in changes between BKP and VP for anterior (P = .226) and posterior (P = .293) vertebral height restoration. There was no significant difference in subsequent fractures following BKP (32.7%; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 8.8%-56.6%) or VP (28.3%; 95% CI: 7.0%-49.7%) compared with NSM (15.9%; 95% CI: 5.2%-26.6%).

Conclusions/Level of Evidence

Based on Level I and II studies, BKP had significantly better and VP tended to have better pain reduction compared with NSM. BKP tended to have better height restoration than VP. Additionally, BKP had significant improvements in pain reduction and disability score as compared with VAI.

Clinical Relevance

This meta-analysis serves to further define and support the safety and efficacy of vertebral augmentation.

The risk factors of vertebral refracture after kyphoplasty in patients with osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures: a study protocol for a prospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Percutaneous kyphoplasty (PKP) is the first-line treatment for osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures (OVCFs) that can immediately relieve pain and allow the quick recovery of lost mobility. However, some studies reported that after PKP, the incidence of vertebral refracture, particularly adjacent vertebral fracture (AVF), was high. Our previous meta-analysis suggested that the risks for vertebral refracture and AVF did not increase after percutaneous vertebral augmentation in OVCF patients. Despite the negative results of our meta-analysis, there is still significant evidence regarding the relationship between kyphoplasty and AVF, so a new prospective cohort study is warranted. In addition, in our previous retrospective study, we found that advanced age, female sex and low oestradiol (E₂) concentrations might be related to the occurrence of postoperative vertebral refracture after PKP. To sufficiently evaluate the probable factors involved in the occurrence of postoperative vertebral refracture, we designed this prospective study.

METHODS

This is a prospective cohort study of patients admitted for PKP to treat painful OVCFs. The baseline data, including demographic information, lifestyle, bone metabolic status, sex hormone and sex hormone-binding globulin (SHBG) levels, and clinical characteristics will be collected at the time of enrolment. Surgical features of PKP will be recorded on the operation day. Lifestyle, bone metabolic status, sex hormone levels, and SHBG levels will be assessed during the follow-up period at 1 m, 3 m, 12 m, and 24 m postoperatively. Patients suffering from acutely aggravated back pain will be referred to an orthopaedist, and refractured vertebrae will be confirmed by magnetic resonance imaging and computed tomography. The primary outcome will be the incidence of vertebral refracture. Multivariate analyses will be carried out to evaluate the variables that are independently correlated with vertebral refracture.

DISCUSSION

To evaluate the risk of postoperative refracture preoperatively and to identify the surgical points related to postoperative refracture, this study will explore the risk factors related to vertebral refracture after PKP. The results may provide new information about defining OVCF patients suitable for PKP treatment.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ChiCTR-ROC-17011562 . Registered on July 4th, 2017.

Network meta-analysis of percutaneous vertebroplasty, percutaneous kyphoplasty, nerve block, and conservative treatment for nonsurgery options of acute/subacute and chronic osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures (OVCFs) in short-term and long-term effects

BACKGROUND

Osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures (OVCFs) commonly afflicts most aged people resulting back pain, substantial vertebral deformity, functional disability, decreased quality of life, and increased adjacent spinal fractures and mortality. Percutaneous vertebral augmentation (PVA) included percutaneous vertebroplasty (PVP) and percutaneous kyphoplasty (PKP), nerve block (NB), and conservative treatment (CT) are used for the nonsurgery treatment strategy of OVCFs, however, current evaluation of their efficacy remains controversial.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

A systematic literature search was carried out in PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Knowledge, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials up to October 31, 2017. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were compared PVP, PKP, NB, or CT for treating OVCFs. The risk of bias for each trial was rated according to the Cochrane Handbook. Mean differences (MDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were utilized to express VAS (visual analog scale) outcomes. The network meta-analysis (NMA) of the comparative efficacy measured by change of VAS on acute/subacute and chronic OVCFs was conducted for a short-term (<4 weeks) and long-term (≥6-12months) follow-up with the ADDIS software.

RESULTS

A total of 18 trials among 1994 patients were included in the NMA. The PVA (PVP and PKP) had better efficacy than CT. PKP was first option in alleviating pain in the case of the acute/subacute OVCFs for long term, and chronic OVCFs for short term and long term, while PVP had the most superiority in the case of the acute/subacute OVCFs for short term. NB ranks higher probability than PKP and PVP on acute/subacute OVCFs in short and long-term, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The present results suggest that PVA (PVP/PKP) had better performance than CT in alleviating acute/subacute and chronic OVCFs pain for short and long-term. NB may be used as an alternative or before PVA, as far as pain relief is concerned. Various nonsurgery treatments including CT, PVA (PVP/PKP), NB, or a combination of these treatments are performed with the goal of reducing pain, stabilizing the vertebrae, and restoring mobility.

Percutaneous vertebroplasty for osteoporotic vertebral compression fracture

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.

Vertebroplasty for vertebral compression fractures: Placebo or effective?

Vertebral compression fractures (VCFs) are a major cause of pain and disability. Here, we reviewed six randomized control trials (RCTs) focusing on the efficacy vs. placebo effect of vertebroplasty (VP) for symptomatic VCF. Four RCTs involved a nonsurgically treated control group. Two RCTs compared the use of VP vs. a sham surgery control group. Notably, RCTs comparing nonsurgically treated patients as a control group vs. those undergoing VP uniformly reported that VP contributed to improved pain relief. In contrast, RCTs comparing sham surgery vs. VP uniformly reported no significant differences between the two groups.

Comparison of the efficacy and safety of 3 treatments for patients with osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures: A network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures (OVCFs) constitute an age-related health problem that affects approximately 200 million people worldwide. Currently, various treatments are performed with the goal of reducing pain, stabilizing the vertebrate, and restoring mobility. In this study, we aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of vertebroplasty (VP), kyphoplasty (KP), and conservative treatment (CT) for the treatment of OVCFs.

METHODS

We performed a network meta-analysis. PubMed and Embase databases were searched to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that contained at least one of the following outcomes: visual analog scale (VAS), Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RDQ), European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D), and new fractures. Odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were used to calculate the risk of new fractures, and mean differences (MDs) with 95% CIs were utilized to express RDQ, EQ-5D, and VAS outcomes.

RESULTS

Sixteen RCTs with 2046 participants were included in this meta-analysis. Compared with CT, patients treated with VP had improved pain relief, daily function, and quality of life; however, no significant differences were found between VP and KP for these 3 outcomes. All treatment options were associated with comparable risk of new fractures. When the rank probability was assessed to distinguish subtle differences between the treatments, VP was the most effective treatment for pain relief, followed by KP and CT; conversely, KP was the most effective in improving daily function and quality of life and decreasing the incidence of new fractures, followed by VP and CT.

CONCLUSION

VP might be the best option when pain relief is the principle aim of therapy, but KP was associated with the lowest risk of new fractures and might offer better outcomes in terms of daily function and quality of life.