Prime

Type your tag names separated by a space and hit enter

Meta-analysis of vertebral augmentation compared with conservative treatment for osteoporotic spinal fractures.

Abstract

Cement augmentation is a controversial treatment for painful vertebral compression fractures (VCF). Our research questions for the meta-analysis were: Is there a clinical and statistical difference in pain relief, functional improvement, and quality of life between conservative care and cement augmentation for VCF and, if so, are they maintained at longer time points? We conducted a search of MEDLINE from January 1980 to July 2011 using PubMed, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and Controlled Trials, CINAHL, and EMBASE. Searches were performed from medical subject headings. Terms "vertebroplasty" and "compression fracture" were used. The outcome variables of pain, functional measures, health-related quality of life (HRQOL), and new fracture risk were analyzed. A random effects model was chosen. Continuous variables were calculated using the standardized mean difference comparing improvement from baseline of the experimental group with the control group. New vertebral fracture risk was calculated using log odds ratio. Six studies met the criteria. The pain visual analog scale (VAS) mean difference was 0.73 (confidence interval [CI] 0.35, 1.10) for early (<12 weeks) and 0.58 (CI 0.19, 0.97) for late time points (6 to 12 months), favoring vertebroplasty (p < 0.001). The functional outcomes at early and late time points were statistically significant with 1.08 (CI 0.33, 1.82) and 1.16 (CI 0.14, 2.18), respectively. The HRQOL showed superior results of vertebroplasty compared with conservative care at early and late time points of 0.39 (CI 0.16, 0.62) and 0.33 (CI 0.16, 0.51), respectively. Secondary fractures were not statistically different between the groups, 0.065 (CI -0.57, 0.70). This meta-analysis showed greater pain relief, functional recovery, and health-related quality of life with cement augmentation compared with controls. Cement augmentation results were significant in the early (<12 weeks) and the late time points (6 to 12 months). This meta-analysis provides strong evidence in favor of cement augmentation in the treatment of symptomatic VCF fractures.

Links

  • Publisher Full Text
  • Authors

    , ,

    Source

    MeSH

    Health
    Humans
    Odds Ratio
    Osteoporotic Fractures
    Pain Measurement
    Publication Bias
    Quality of Life
    Spinal Fractures
    Spine
    Time Factors
    Treatment Outcome
    Vertebroplasty

    Pub Type(s)

    Comparative Study
    Journal Article
    Meta-Analysis
    Review

    Language

    eng

    PubMed ID

    22991246

    Citation

    TY - JOUR T1 - Meta-analysis of vertebral augmentation compared with conservative treatment for osteoporotic spinal fractures. AU - Anderson,Paul A, AU - Froyshteter,Alexander B, AU - Tontz,William L,Jr PY - 2012/7/1/received PY - 2012/8/23/revised PY - 2012/8/31/accepted PY - 2012/9/20/entrez PY - 2012/9/20/pubmed PY - 2013/6/28/medline SP - 372 EP - 82 JF - Journal of bone and mineral research : the official journal of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research JO - J. Bone Miner. Res. VL - 28 IS - 2 N2 - Cement augmentation is a controversial treatment for painful vertebral compression fractures (VCF). Our research questions for the meta-analysis were: Is there a clinical and statistical difference in pain relief, functional improvement, and quality of life between conservative care and cement augmentation for VCF and, if so, are they maintained at longer time points? We conducted a search of MEDLINE from January 1980 to July 2011 using PubMed, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and Controlled Trials, CINAHL, and EMBASE. Searches were performed from medical subject headings. Terms "vertebroplasty" and "compression fracture" were used. The outcome variables of pain, functional measures, health-related quality of life (HRQOL), and new fracture risk were analyzed. A random effects model was chosen. Continuous variables were calculated using the standardized mean difference comparing improvement from baseline of the experimental group with the control group. New vertebral fracture risk was calculated using log odds ratio. Six studies met the criteria. The pain visual analog scale (VAS) mean difference was 0.73 (confidence interval [CI] 0.35, 1.10) for early (<12 weeks) and 0.58 (CI 0.19, 0.97) for late time points (6 to 12 months), favoring vertebroplasty (p < 0.001). The functional outcomes at early and late time points were statistically significant with 1.08 (CI 0.33, 1.82) and 1.16 (CI 0.14, 2.18), respectively. The HRQOL showed superior results of vertebroplasty compared with conservative care at early and late time points of 0.39 (CI 0.16, 0.62) and 0.33 (CI 0.16, 0.51), respectively. Secondary fractures were not statistically different between the groups, 0.065 (CI -0.57, 0.70). This meta-analysis showed greater pain relief, functional recovery, and health-related quality of life with cement augmentation compared with controls. Cement augmentation results were significant in the early (<12 weeks) and the late time points (6 to 12 months). This meta-analysis provides strong evidence in favor of cement augmentation in the treatment of symptomatic VCF fractures. SN - 1523-4681 UR - https://www.unboundmedicine.com/medline/citation/22991246/Meta_analysis_of_vertebral_augmentation_compared_to_conservative_treatment_for_osteoporotic_spinal_fractures_ L2 - http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jbmr.1762 ER -