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):e01381268 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.
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
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
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 ?
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.
Quelle était la principale question de recherche ?
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?
- 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)
De quoi dois-je me souvenir en priorité ?
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.
Comment cela affectera-t-il les soins prodigués à mes patients ?
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.
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
