ACE Report Cover
Vertebral augmentation effective in osteoporotic vertebral compression fracture at 1 year
Translate this  ACE Report Translate this  ACE Report Translate this  ACE Report
Sprache
Download Download Download
Herunterladen
Cite this Report Cite this Report Cite this Report
Zitieren
Add to Favorites Add to Favorites Add to Favorites Remove from Favorites Remove from Favorites Remove from Favorites
+ Favoriten
Translate this  ACE Report Translate this  ACE Report Translate this  ACE Report
Sprache
Download Download Download
Herunterladen
Cite this Report Cite this Report Cite this Report
Zitieren
Add to Favorites Add to Favorites Add to Favorites Remove from Favorites Remove from Favorites Remove from Favorites
+ Favoriten
SPINE
Vertebral augmentation effective in osteoporotic vertebral compression fracture at 1 year .

OrthoEvidence Journal (OE Journal) - ACE Report

OE Journal. 2015;3(24):31 PLoS One. 2015 Sep 17;10(9):e0138126
Mitwirkende Autoren

L Li J Ren J Liu H. Wang X Wang Z Liu T Sun

8 randomized controlled trials were included in this meta-analysis for the purpose of comparing pain relief, spinal function, and quality of life in percutaneous vertebral augmentation (PVA) in comparison to conventional treatment for painful osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures. Pain scores, spinal functional outcomes, and quality of life were all significantly in favor of the percutaneous vertebral augmentation groups up to 1 year post-operatively in comparison to conventional treatment. Subgroup analysis indicated that percutaneous vertebral augmentation in fractures less than 3 months old would cause greater pain relief.


Details zur Finanzierung der Veröffentlichung +
Finanzierung:
Non-Industry funded
Sponsor:
Beijing Municipal Science and Technology Commission
Conflicts:
None disclosed

Risiko der Voreingenommenheit

9,5/10

Kriterien für die Berichterstattung

18/20

Fragilitäts-Index

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?

Ja = 1

Ungewiss = 0.5

Nicht relevant = 0

Nein = 0

Die Bewertung der Berichtskriterien bewertet die Transparenz, mit der die Autoren die methodischen und studienspezifischen Merkmale der Studie in der Veröffentlichung angeben. Die Bewertung ist in fünf Kategorien unterteilt, die im Folgenden vorgestellt werden.

4/4

Introduction

4/4

Accessing Data

4/4

Analysing Data

4/4

Results

2/4

Discussion

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

Der Fragilitätsindex ist ein Instrument, das bei der Interpretation signifikanter Ergebnisse hilft und ein Maß für die Stärke eines Ergebnisses liefert. Der Fragilitätsindex gibt die Anzahl der aufeinanderfolgenden Ereignisse an, die zu einem dichotomen Ergebnis hinzugefügt werden müssen, damit das Ergebnis nicht mehr signifikant ist. Eine kleine Zahl steht für ein schwächeres Ergebnis und eine große Zahl für ein stärkeres Ergebnis.

Warum wurde diese Studie jetzt benötigt?

The use and efficacy of percutaneous vertebral augmentation (PVA), such as vertebroplasty and balloon kyphoplasty, has been a topic of debate in the treatment of painful osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures. A number of reports have shown conflicting results ultimately altering the treatment recommendations for these fractures. Recent randomized controlled trials (RCTs) had been published comparing vertebroplasty and balloon kyphoplasty to conventional treatment in painful osteoporotic VCFs and thus the present study was prudent to provide an updated assessment of available high-quality literature.

Was war die wichtigste Forschungsfrage?

How do the clinical differences in pain relief, spinal functional outcomes, and overall quality of life compare between percutaneous vertebral augmentation and conventional treatment for the management of painful osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures?

Merkmale der Studie +
Data Source:
A computerized database search was conducted using PubMed, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Knowledge, Chinese Biomedical Literature Database, and Wanfang Data from January 1980 to June 2013, with no language restrictions. Reference lists were manually searched in order to retrieve any articles missed by the electronic search.
Index Terms:
Search strategy for Pubmed: "(((((spinal compression fracture) OR vertebral compression fracture)) OR "Fractures, Compression"[Mesh])) AND (((((Vertebroplasty) OR kyphoplasty) OR vertebral augmentation)) OR (("Vertebroplasty"[Mesh]) OR "Kyphoplasty"[Mesh]))) AND (((random) OR "Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic"[Mesh]) OR randomized controlled trial [Publication Type])".
Study Selection:
Inclusion criteria were published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs that compared either vertebroplasty or balloon kyphoplasty to conventional treatment, sham treatment or other interventions for osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures. Patients must have been aged greater than 50 years with acute or chronic osteoporotic VCF that caused pain and functional limitations. Two independent authors reviewed articles for adherence to inclusion criteria, disagreements were resolved via consensus or via a third author. 8 RCT's including 987 patients (759 male, 229 female) were included, 5 compared vertebroplasty with conventional treatment, 2 compared vertebroplasty with sham treatment and 1 RCT compared balloon kyphoplasty with conventional treatment.
Data Extraction:
Two independent reviewers extracted data using an extraction form. Data was checked by a third reviewer. Outcomes included pain relief via visual analogue scale (VAS), spinal functional outcomes via the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RDQ) and the Oswestry low back pain score, overall quality of life outcomes via the European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D) and the Quality of life Questionnaire of the European Foundation for Osteoporosis (QUALEFFO), as well as new events of VCF and new adjacent VCF.
Data Synthesis:
Analyses were conducted using STATA 12.0 software. Continuous variables were expressed via mean difference (MD) from baseline to endpoint and the experimental group and control group were compared via standardized mean difference (SMD) with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI's). Dichotomous outcomes were represented with risk ratio (RR) and 95% CIs. The studies were assumed to be heterogeneous and a random effects model was used. The Galbraith plot was used to assess heterogeneity, and if heterogeneity existed a sensitivity analysis was performed to detect the source of heterogeneity, and the fixed effects model was then used.
Was waren die wichtigsten Ergebnisse?
  • VAS pain in the early-term follow-up (1 week to 1 month), middle-term follow-up (2-3 months) and the late-term follow-up (1 year) all significantly favored the experimental group (Early: 7 studies; SMD 0.30 [95% CI 0.09, 0.51]; p=0.005; I2=77.9% | Middle: 7 studies; SMD 0.28 [95% CI 0.14, 0.42]; p=0.000; I2=51.3% | Late: 5 studies; SMD 0.26 [95% CI 0.12, 0.41]; p=0.000; I2=41.5%). Sensitivity analysis did not alter these results.
  • Subgroup analysis of VAS scores indicated that the efficacy of vertebroplasty and balloon kyphoplasty on pain relief was greater than conventional treatment at all timepoints and that the difference was significant with the exception of vertebroplasty in the early follow-up (p=0.06)
  • No difference in pain was noted between vertebroplasty and sham treatment in the early and middle term follow-up
  • Subgroup analysis of VAS score suggested that patients with PVA performed with a fracture age of less than 3 months would get earlier pain relief than control group, and that MRI is beneficial as inclusion criteria at all time points (p<0.05)
  • Spinal functional outcomes in the early-term, middle-term, and late-term follow up all significantly favored the experimental group (Early: 6 studies; SMD 0.32 [95% CI 0.10, 0.54]; p=0.004; I2=75.7% | Middle: 5 studies; SMD 0.24 [95% CI 0.05, 0.42]; p=0.011; I2=65.2% | Late: 3 studies; SMD 0.26 [0.14, 0.38]; p=0.000; I2=0%). Sensitivity analysis did not change the significance of these results (p<0.001).
  • Quality of life outcomes in the early-term, middle-term, and late-term follow up all significantly favored the experimental group (Early: 6 studies; SMD 0.23 [95% CI 0.14, 0.33]; p=0.000; I2=0% | Middle: 4 studies; SMD 0.23 [95% CI 0.05, 0.41]; p=0.012; I2=60.3% | Late: 3 studies; SMD 0.23 [95% CI 0.11, 0.34]; p=0.000; I2=0.6%), sensitivity analysis did not alter these results.
  • There was no significant difference in the risk of new VCFs (7 studies) or adjacent VCFs (5 studies) between 2 weeks and 2 years between the experimental and control groups (RR 1.09 [95% CI 0.61, 1.97]; p=0.77 and 1.80 [95% CI 0.61, 5.30]; p=0.28, respectively)
Was sollte ich mir besonders merken?

Pain scores, spinal functional outcomes, and quality of life were significantly in favor of the percutaneous vertebral augmentation groups in the early, middle, and late term follow-up (up to 1 year) in comparison to control treatments. Subgroup analysis indicated that patients receiving percutaneous vertebral augmentation with a fracture age less than 3 months would get earlier pain relief than the control group.

Wie wird sich dies auf die Behandlung meiner Patienten auswirken?

The results of this study indicate that percutaneous vertebral augmentation for the treatment of osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures may provide improvements in pain, spinal function, and quality of life in comparison to control treatments up to 1 year post-operatively. Further high quality RCTs are needed to add to the current body of literature and examine if differences clinically meaningful.

HAFTUNGSAUSSCHLUSS

Der Inhalt dieser Seite dient nur zu Informationszwecken und ist nicht als Ersatz für professionelle medizinische Beratung, Diagnose oder Behandlung gedacht. Wenn Sie eine medizinische Behandlung benötigen, wenden Sie sich immer an Ihren Arzt oder suchen Sie die nächstgelegene Notaufnahme auf. Die Meinungen, Überzeugungen und Standpunkte, die von den Personen auf dieser Seite geäußert werden, spiegeln nicht die Meinungen, Überzeugungen und Standpunkte von OrthoEvidence wider.

0 von 4 monatliche KOSTENLOSE Artikel freigeschaltet
Sie haben Ihr Limit von 4 kostenlosen Artikeln in diesem Monat erreicht

Zugang zu OrthoEvidence für nur $1,99 pro Woche.

Bleiben Sie auf dem Laufenden mit den neuesten Beweisen. Jederzeit kündbar.
  • Kritische Beurteilungen der neuesten, hochwirksamen randomisierten kontrollierten Studien und systematischen Übersichten in der Orthopädie
  • Zugang zu OrthoEvidence-Podcast-Inhalten, einschließlich Kooperationen mit dem Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Interviews mit international anerkannten Chirurgen und Diskussionsrunden zu orthopädischen Neuigkeiten und Themen
  • Abonnement von The Pulse, einem zweimal wöchentlich erscheinenden evidenzbasierten Newsletter, der Ihnen helfen soll, bessere klinische Entscheidungen zu treffen
Upgrade
Willkommen zurück!
Passwort vergessen?
Starten Sie Ihre KOSTENLOSE Testversion noch heute!

Ihr Konto ist verbunden mit
und umfasst den kostenlosen Zugang zu OrthoEvidence


ODER
Passwort vergessen?

ODER
Bitte überprüfen Sie Ihre E-Mail

Wenn ein Konto mit der angegebenen E-Mail-Adresse existiert, wird Ihnen eine E-Mail zum Zurücksetzen des Passworts zugesandt. Wenn Sie keine E-Mail sehen, überprüfen Sie bitte Ihren Spam- oder Junk-Ordner.

Für weitere Hilfe, kontaktieren Sie unser Support-Team.

Bitte melden Sie sich an, um diese Funktion zu aktivieren

Um auf diese Funktion zugreifen zu können, müssen Sie bei einem aktiven OrthoEvidence-Konto angemeldet sein. Bitte melden Sie sich an oder erstellen Sie ein KOSTENLOSES Testkonto.

Übersetzen ACE Report

OrthoEvidence nutzt einen externen Übersetzungsdienst, um Inhalte in mehreren Sprachen zugänglich zu machen. Bitte beachten Sie, dass trotz aller Bemühungen um Genauigkeit die Übersetzungen nicht immer perfekt sind.

Wie man dies zitiert ACE Report

OrthoEvidence. Vertebral augmentation effective in osteoporotic vertebral compression fracture at 1 year. OE Journal. 2015;3(24):31. Available from: https://myorthoevidence.com/AceReport/Show/

Zitat kopieren
Bitte melden Sie sich an, um diese Funktion zu aktivieren

Um auf diese Funktion zugreifen zu können, müssen Sie bei einem aktiven OrthoEvidence-Konto angemeldet sein. Bitte melden Sie sich an oder erstellen Sie ein KOSTENLOSES Testkonto.

Premium-Mitglied-Funktion

Um auf diese Funktion zugreifen zu können, müssen Sie bei einem Premium-Konto von OrthoEvidence angemeldet sein.

Teilen Sie dies ACE Report