Which is the best treatment of osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures: balloon kyphoplasty, percutaneous vertebroplasty, or non-surgical treatment? A Bayesian network meta-analysis
- 436 Downloads
The aim of the current study was to use a Bayesian network meta-analysis to evaluate the relative benefits and risks of balloon kyphoplasty (BK), percutaneous vertebroplasty (PVP), and non-surgical treatment (NST) for patients with osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures (OVCFs). The results demonstrate that for pain and functional status, PVP was significantly better than NST, while the three treatments did not significantly differ in other outcomes.
BK, PVP, and NST are widely used to treat OVCFs, but preferable treatment is unknown. The aim of the current study was to use a Bayesian network meta-analysis to evaluate the relative benefits and risks of BK, PVP, and NST for patients with OVCFs.
PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library were screened. Based on the preplanned eligibility criteria, we screened and included randomized controlled trials that compared BK, PVP, and NST in treating patients with OVCFs. The risk of bias for individual studies was appraised. The data were pooled using a Bayesian network meta-analysis and a traditional direct comparison meta-analysis.
Of the 1057 relevant studies, 15 were eligible and included. Compared with NST, PVP significantly reduced pain, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and Roland–Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ). The comparative efficacy of BK and PVP was similar for pain (mean difference (MD) 0.51, 95% credible interval (CrI) − 0.35 to 1.4), ODI (MD 0.11, 95% CrI − 13 to 13), and RMDQ (MD 1.2, 95% CrI − 2.7 to 5.4). The European Quality of Life–5 Dimensions (EQ–5D) and Physical Component Summary subscales of the Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short-Form General Health Survey (SF-36 PCS) did not differ significantly. There were also no substantial differences in the risks of subsequent vertebral fractures, adjacent vertebral fractures, and re-fractures at the treated level across all comparators. The results of pairwise meta-analyses were almost consistent with those of network meta-analyses. The treatment ranking indicated that PVP had the highest probability of being the most effective for pain, ODI, RMDQ, and EQ-5D. BK had the highest probability of improving SF-36 PCS and of reducing the risk of subsequent vertebral fractures and re-fractures at the treated level. NST was ranked first in preventing adjacent vertebral fractures.
PVP was the most effective method for improving pain, functional status, and quality of life (based on EQ-5D). BK emerged as the best intervention for decreasing the risk of subsequent vertebral fractures and re-fractures at the treated level. NST could be ranked first in reducing adjacent vertebral fractures. The future directions of OVCFs treatment will depend on the outcomes of additional and larger randomized trials in comparing BK with PVP.
KeywordsBalloon kyphoplasty Network meta-analysis Non-surgical treatment Osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures Percutaneous vertebroplasty
This work was supported by Tianjin Municipal Science and Technology Commission (16KG158), and Foundation of Tianjin Union Medical Center (2016YJZD003, 2017YJ024, 2018YJ010). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflicts of interest
- 2.Strom O, Borgstrom F, Kanis JA, Compston J, Cooper C, McCloskey EV, Jonsson B (2011) Osteoporosis: burden, health care provision and opportunities in the EU: a report prepared in collaboration with the International Osteoporosis Foundation (IOF) and the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industry Associations (EFPIA). Arch Osteoporos 6:59–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 4.Silverman SL, Minshall ME, Shen W, Harper KD, Xie S (2001) The relationship of health-related quality of life to prevalent and incident vertebral fractures in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis: results from the Multiple Outcomes of Raloxifene Evaluation Study. Arthritis Rheum 44:2611–2619CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 5.Hernlund E, Svedbom A, Ivergard M, Compston J, Cooper C, Stenmark J, McCloskey EV, Jonsson B, Kanis JA (2013) Osteoporosis in the European Union: medical management, epidemiology and economic burden. A report prepared in collaboration with the international Osteoporosis Foundation (IOF) and the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industry Associations (EFPIA). Arch Osteoporos 8:136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 10.Diamond TH, Bryant C, Browne L, Clark WA (2006) Clinical outcomes after acute osteoporotic vertebral fractures: a 2-year non-randomised trial comparing percutaneous vertebroplasty with conservative therapy. Med J Aust 184:113–117Google Scholar
- 17.Higgins JPT, Green S (editors) (2011) Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 5.1.0 [updated march 2011]. The Cochrane collaboration. Available at: www.cochrane-handbook.org. Accessed 1 June 2018
- 27.Chen G, Zhang ST, Liu YC, Sun RZ, Zhao X, Luo D (2010) Percutaneous vertebroplasty compared to conservative treatment in patients with osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures. The Journal of Cervicodynia and Lumbodynia 31:323–326Google Scholar
- 28.Chen JP, Qi XW, Li SJ, Kuang LP, Yuan XH, Wang GS, Tan WY (2015) Bone cement injection as vertebral augmentation therapy for osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures. Chinese Journal of Tissue Engineering Research 19:3292–3296Google Scholar
- 30.Wang CH, Ma JZ, Zhang CC, Nie L (2015) Comparison of high-viscosity cement vertebroplasty and balloon kyphoplasty for the treatment of osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures. Pain physician E187–194Google Scholar
- 36.Rousing R, Hansen KL, Andersen MO, Jespersen SM, Thomsen K, Lauritsen JM (2010) Twelve-months follow-up in forty-nine patients with acute/semiacute osteoporotic vertebral fractures treated conservatively or with percutaneous vertebroplasty: a clinical randomized study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 35:478–482CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 38.Voormolen MHJ, Mali WPTM, Lohle PNM, Fransen H, Lampmann LEH, Van Der Graaf Y, Juttmann JR, Jansssens X, Verhaar HJJ (2007) Percutaneous vertebroplasty compared with optimal pain medication treatment: short-term clinical outcome of patients with subacute or chronic painful osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures. The VERTOS study. Am J Neuroradiol 28:555–560Google Scholar
- 39.Blasco J, Martinez-Ferrer A, Macho J, San Roman L, Pomes J, Carrasco J, Monegal A, Guanabens N, Peris P (2012) Effect of vertebroplasty on pain relief, quality of life, and the incidence of new vertebral fractures: a 12-month randomized follow-up, controlled trial. J Bone Miner Res 27:1159–1166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 45.Stevenson M, Gomersall T, Lloyd Jones M, Rawdin A, Hernandez M, Dias S, Wilson D, Rees A (2014) Percutaneous vertebroplasty and percutaneous balloon kyphoplasty for the treatment of osteoporotic vertebral fractures: a systematic review and cost-effectiveness analysis. Health Technol Assess (Winch Eng) 18:1–290Google Scholar
- 46.Papanastassiou ID, Phillips FM, Van Meirhaeghe J, Berenson JR, Andersson GB, Chung G, Small BJ, Aghayev K, Vrionis FD (2012) Comparing effects of kyphoplasty, vertebroplasty, and non-surgical management in a systematic review of randomized and non-randomized controlled studies. Eur Spine J 21:1826–1843CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 47.Zhao G, Liu X, Li F (2016) Balloon kyphoplasty versus percutaneous vertebroplasty for treatment of osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures (OVCFs). Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USAGoogle Scholar
- 48.Mahmootjan M, Zhu SB, Li JF, Jin L, Su RH, Wang X (2014) Two surgical methods for osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures: a meta-analysis on safety and efficacy. Chin J Tissue Eng Res 18:3551–3559Google Scholar
- 50.Buchbinder R, Golmohammadi K, Johnston RV, Owen RJ, Homik J, Jones A, Dhillon SS, Kallmes DF, Lambert RG (2015) Percutaneous vertebroplasty for osteoporotic vertebral compression fracture. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 4:CD006349Google Scholar
- 58.Li L, Ren J, Liu J, Wang H, Wang X, Liu Z, Sun T (2015) Results of vertebral augmentation treatment for patients of painful osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures: a meta-analysis of eight randomized controlled trials. PLoS One 10Google Scholar
- 60.Kallmes DF, Comstock BA, Heagerty PJ, Turner JA, Wilson DJ, Diamond TH, Edwards R, Gray LA, Stout L, Owen S, Hollingworth W, Ghdoke B, Annesley-Williams DJ, Ralston SH, Jarvik JG (2009) A randomized trial of vertebroplasty for osteoporotic spinal fractures. N Engl J Med 361:569–579CrossRefGoogle Scholar