ACE Report Cover
Kyphoplasty superior to vertebroplasty for osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures
Translate this  ACE Report Translate this  ACE Report Translate this  ACE Report
Langue
Download Download Download
Télécharger
Cite this Report Cite this Report Cite this Report
Citer
Add to Favorites Add to Favorites Add to Favorites Remove from Favorites Remove from Favorites Remove from Favorites
+ Favoris
Translate this  ACE Report Translate this  ACE Report Translate this  ACE Report
Langue
Download Download Download
Télécharger
Cite this Report Cite this Report Cite this Report
Citer
Add to Favorites Add to Favorites Add to Favorites Remove from Favorites Remove from Favorites Remove from Favorites
+ Favoris
SPINE
Kyphoplasty superior to vertebroplasty for osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures .

OrthoEvidence Journal (OE Journal) - ACE Report

OE Journal. 2013;1(13):23 J Clin Neurosci. 2013 Jun;20(6):795-803. doi: 10.1016/j.jocn.2012.05.038. Epub 2013 Feb 18.
Auteurs contributeurs

D Xing JX Ma XL Ma J Wang WG Xu Y Chen DH Song

10 trials (783 patients) were analyzed in this meta-analysis to compare the safety and efficacy between balloon kyphoplasty (KP) and percutaneous vertebroplasty (VP) in the treatment of osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures (OVCF). The meta-analysis found that balloon kyphoplasty had significantly better long term results (longer than 6 months) in terms of kyphosis angle, anterior height of the vertebral body, and cement leakage rates. No between-group differences were found in short and long term visual analog scale (VAS) pain and Oswestry-Disability Index scores, operative times, short term kyphosis angle, or adjacent-level fracture rates.


Détails du financement de la publication +
Financement:
Non-funded
Conflicts:
None disclosed

Risque de partialité

10/10

Critères de déclaration

18/20

Indice de fragilité

N/A

Were the search methods used to find evidence (original research) on the primary question or questions stated?

Was the search for evidence reasonably comprehensive?

Were the criteria used for deciding which studies to include in the overview reported?

Was the bias in the selection of studies avoided?

Were the criteria used for assessing the validity of the included studies reported?

Was the validity of all of the studies referred to in the text assessed with use of appropriate criteria (either in selecting the studies for inclusion or in analyzing the studies that were cited)?

Were the methods used to combine the findings of the relevant studies (to reach a conclusion) reported?

Were the findings of the relevant studies combined appropriately relative to the primary question that the overview addresses?

Were the conclusions made by the author or authors supported by the data and or analysis reported in the overview?

How would you rate the scientific quality of this evidence?

Oui = 1

Incertain = 0,5

Non pertinent = 0

Non = 0

L'évaluation des critères de rapport permet d'évaluer la transparence avec laquelle les auteurs rapportent les caractéristiques méthodologiques et les caractéristiques de l'essai dans la publication. L'évaluation est divisée en cinq catégories qui sont présentées ci-dessous.

4/4

Introduction

4/4

Accessing Data

4/4

Analysing Data

3/4

Results

3/4

Discussion

Detsky AS, Naylor CD, O'Rourke K, McGeer AJ, L'Abbé KA. J Clin Epidemiol. 1992;45:255-65

L'indice de fragilité est un outil qui aide à l'interprétation des résultats significatifs, en fournissant une mesure de la force d'un résultat. L'indice de fragilité représente le nombre d'événements consécutifs qui doivent être ajoutés à un résultat dichotomique pour que le résultat ne soit plus significatif. Un petit nombre représente un résultat plus faible et un grand nombre un résultat plus fort.

Pourquoi cette étude était-elle nécessaire maintenant ?

Worldwide, osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures (OVCF) have detrimental effects on patients. They are responsible for decrease in anterior vertebral height, spinal deformity, reduced pulmonary function, abdominal and thoracic content restriction, impaired mobility, and depression. Two surgical procedures, vertebroplasty (VP) and kyphoplasty (KP), have demonstrated better pain relief, vertebral restoration, and mobility than conservative treatments. A previous study stated that kyphoplasty, however, had higher costs than vertebroplasty. Hence, a meta-analysis was needed to compare both surgical procedures with each other.

Quelle était la principale question de recherche ?

What is the safety and efficacy of balloon kyphoplasty (KP) compared to percutaneous vertebroplasty (VP) in treatment of osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures (OVCF)?

Caractéristiques de l'étude +
Data Source:
The primary search for peer-reviewed RCTs, published until end of May 2012, was conducted using PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) on MEDLINE, Embase, ScienceDirect, Ovid, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) databases. The secondary search was conducted on the Wold Health Organization’s International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, the UK National Research Register Archive and Current Controlled Trials for unpublished articles until March 1, 2012.
Index Terms:
The index terms used were: kyphoplasty, vertebral compression fracture, osteoporosis, and vertebroplasty.
Study Selection:
Two independent reviewers selected 10 RCTs (783 patients), comparing kyphoplasty to vertebroplasty, in treatment of osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures. The studies had to have at least one of the outcomes: operation time, subjective pain perception, quality of life evaluation, adjacent vertebral fracture incidence, bone cement leakage, vertebral body height, and kyphosis angle post-operation. Studies reporting non-osteoporotic vertebral fractures, previous surgeries performed, and degenerative spinal diseases were excluded. All disagreements were addressed until a consensus was reached. Both authors also conducted a “Risk of Bias” assessment using Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions guidelines, with a review by a third author.
Data Extraction:
Two independent reviewers extracted the study characteristics, types of interventions, numbers of vertebral bodies, surgical procedures, visual analog scale (VAS) scores, the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores, operation time, kyphosis angle, anterior vertebral body height, adjacent fractures and bone cement leakages. Short term results were considered as no more than 1 week, and long term results were longer than 6 months. A third reviewer rechecked the extracted data.
Data Synthesis:
Review Manager Software (RevMan Version 5.1) was used for all data analysis. Continuous outcomes were stated as mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Dichotomous outcomes were depicted as risk ratios (RR) with 95% CI. All p<0.05 were considered significant. Sensitivity and subgroup analysis was conducted, studying sources of heterogeneity, by chi-square and I-square tests.
Quels sont les résultats importants ?
  • In 7 trials, reporting short term VAS no difference was found between KP and VP (MD= -0.57, 95% CI= -1.33 to 0.20; p=0.15). Similar results were seen in long term VAS scores in 9 studies (MD = -0.99, 95% CI = -2.29 to 0.31; p=0.14).
  • In 5 studies, covering ODI scores, 2 showed no differences between the groups in short term results (MD= -6.54, 95% CI = -14.57 to 1.48; p=0.11) and 5 had no differences in long term results (MD= -2.01, 95% CI -11.75 to 7.73; p = 0.69).
  • 2 trials indicated no differences in operative times between KP and VP (MD = 4.47, 95% CI = -0.22 to 9.17; p=0.06).
  • 3 studies found no differences in short term kyphosis angle after operation (MD= -2.25, 95% CI= -5.14 to 0.65; p=0.13). However, in 4 trials, the long term kyphosis angle was better with KP (MD=-2.64, 95% CI = -4.66 to -0.61; p=0.01).
  • 4 trials reported better anterior height restoration of the vertebral body in KP (MD= 3.67, 95% CI =1.40 to 5.94; p =0.002).
  • 9 studies also suggested a lower cement leakage rate in KP (RR=0.70, 95% CI =0.52 to 0.95; p=0.02).
  • In 7 trials, no differences were seen between two procedures in adjacent vertebral compression fractures (RR=1.52, 95% CI = 0.76 to 3.03; p = 0.24).
De quoi dois-je me souvenir en priorité ?

The analyzed data suggested that kyphoplasty and vertebroplasty had similar operative time, pain relief, and functional scores in the treatment of osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures. However, kyphoplasty resulted in better long term kyphosis angle, restoration of vertebral body height, and lower risk of cement leakage.

Comment cela affectera-t-il les soins prodigués à mes patients ?

Although the study supports the use of kyphoplasty for better kyphosis angle, vertebral height restoration, and lower risk of cement leakages, the methodological quality and risk of bias of the studies was poor. Further trials still need to be conducted on this topic.

AVIS DE NON-RESPONSABILITÉ

Le contenu de cette page est fourni à titre d'information uniquement et n'est pas destiné à remplacer un avis médical, un diagnostic ou un traitement professionnel. Si vous avez besoin d'un traitement médical, demandez toujours l'avis de votre médecin ou rendez-vous au service des urgences le plus proche. Les opinions, croyances et points de vue exprimés par les individus sur le contenu de cette page ne reflètent pas les opinions, croyances et points de vue d'OrthoEvidence.

0 de 4 articles mensuels GRATUITS débloqués
Vous avez atteint votre limite de 4 vues d'articles gratuits ce mois-ci

Accédez à OrthoEvidence pour seulement 1,99 $ par semaine.

Restez informé des dernières données. Annulez à tout moment.
  • Évaluations critiques des derniers essais contrôlés randomisés à fort impact et des revues systématiques en orthopédie.
  • Accès au contenu des podcasts OrthoEvidence, y compris les collaborations avec le Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, les entretiens avec des chirurgiens de renommée internationale et les tables rondes sur l'actualité et les sujets orthopédiques.
  • Abonnement à The Pulse, une lettre d'information bihebdomadaire fondée sur des données probantes, conçue pour vous aider à prendre de meilleures décisions cliniques.
Upgrade
Bienvenue à nouveau !
Vous avez oublié votre mot de passe ?
Commencez votre essai GRATUIT dès aujourd'hui !

Votre compte sera affilié à
et inclut un accès gratuit à OrthoEvidence.


OU
Vous avez oublié votre mot de passe ?

OU
Veuillez vérifier votre adresse électronique

Si un compte existe avec l'adresse e-mail fournie, un e-mail de réinitialisation du mot de passe vous sera envoyé. Si vous ne voyez pas d'e-mail, veuillez vérifier votre dossier de spam ou de courrier indésirable.

Pour plus d'assistance, contactez notre équipe d'assistance.

Veuillez vous connecter pour activer cette fonction

Pour accéder à cette fonctionnalité, vous devez être connecté à un compte OrthoEvidence actif. Veuillez vous connecter ou créer un compte d'essai GRATUIT.

Traduire le rapport ACE

OrthoEvidence utilise un service de traduction tiers pour rendre le contenu accessible dans plusieurs langues. Veuillez noter que même si tous les efforts sont faits pour assurer l'exactitude, les traductions ne sont pas toujours parfaites.

Comment citer ce document ACE Report

OrthoEvidence. Kyphoplasty superior to vertebroplasty for osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures. OE Journal. 2013;1(13):23. Available from: https://myorthoevidence.com/AceReport/Show/

Copier la citation
Veuillez vous connecter pour activer cette fonction

Pour accéder à cette fonctionnalité, vous devez être connecté à un compte OrthoEvidence actif. Veuillez vous connecter ou créer un compte d'essai GRATUIT.

Fonctionnalité Membre Premium

Pour accéder à cette fonctionnalité, vous devez être connecté à un compte Premium OrthoEvidence.

Partager ACE Report