BACKGROUND: Percutaneous vertebroplasty remains widely used to treat osteoporotic vertebral fractures although our 2015 Cochrane review did not support its role in routine practice.
OBJECTIVES: To update the available evidence of the benefits and harms of vertebroplasty for treatment of osteoporotic vertebral fractures.
SEARCH METHODS: We updated the search of CENTRAL, MEDLINE and Embase and trial registries to 15 November 2017.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of adults with painful osteoporotic vertebral fractures, comparing vertebroplasty with placebo (sham), usual care, or another intervention. As it is least prone to bias, vertebroplasty compared with placebo was the primary comparison. Major outcomes were mean overall pain, disability, disease-specific and overall health-related quality of life, patient-reported treatment success, new symptomatic vertebral fractures and number of other serious adverse events.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodologic procedures expected by Cochrane.
MAIN RESULTS: Twenty-one trials were included: five compared vertebroplasty with placebo (541 randomised participants), eight with usual care (1136 randomised participants), seven with kyphoplasty (968 randomised participants) and one compared vertebroplasty with facet joint glucocorticoid injection (217 randomised participants). Trial size varied from 46 to 404 participants, most participants were female, mean age ranged between 62.6 and 81 years, and mean symptom duration varied from a week to more than six months.Four placebo-controlled trials were at low risk of bias and one was possibly susceptible to performance and detection bias. Other trials were at risk of bias for several criteria, most notably due to lack of participant and personnel blinding.Compared with placebo, high- to moderate-quality evidence from five trials indicates that vertebroplasty provides no clinically important benefits with respect to pain, disability, disease-specific or overall quality of life or treatment success at one month. Evidence for quality of life and treatment success was downgraded due to possible imprecision. Evidence was not downgraded for potential publication bias as only one placebo-controlled trial remains unreported. Mean pain (on a scale zero to 10, higher scores indicate more pain) was five points with placebo and 0.7 points better (0.3 better to 1.2 better) with vertebroplasty, an absolute pain reduction of 7% (3% better to 12% better, minimal clinical important difference is 15%) and relative reduction of 10% (4% better to 17% better) (five trials, 535 participants). Mean disability measured by the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (scale range zero to 23, higher scores indicate worse disability) was 14.2 points in the placebo group and 1.5 points better (0.4 better to 2.6 better) in the vertebroplasty group, absolute improvement 7% (2% to 11% better), relative improvement 9% better (2% to 15% better) (four trials, 472 participants).Disease-specific quality of life measured by the Quality of Life Questionnaire of the European Foundation for Osteoporosis (QUALEFFO) (scale zero to 100, higher scores indicating worse quality of life) was 62 points in the placebo group and 2.3 points better (1.4 points worse to 6.7 points better), an absolute imrovement of 2% (1% worse to 6% better); relative improvement 4% better (2% worse to 10% better) (three trials, 351 participants). Overall quality of life (European Quality of Life (EQ5D), zero = death to 1 = perfect health, higher scores indicate greater quality of life) was 0.38 points in the placebo group and 0.05 points better (0.01 better to 0.09 better) in the vertebroplasty group, absolute improvement: 5% (1% to 9% better), relative improvement: 18% (4% to 32% better) (three trials, 285 participants). In one trial (78 participants), 9/40 (or 225 per 1000) people perceived that treatment was successful in the placebo group compared with 12/38 (or 315 per 1000; 95% CI 150 to 664) in the vertebroplasty group, RR 1.40 (95% CI 0.67 to 2.95), absolute difference: 9% more reported success (11% fewer to 29% more); relative change: 40% more reported success (33% fewer to 195% more).Low-quality evidence (downgraded due to imprecision and potential for bias from the usual-care controlled trials) indicates uncertainty around the risk estimates of harms with vertebroplasty. The incidence of new symptomatic vertebral fractures (from six trials) was 48/418 (95 per 1000; range 34 to 264)) in the vertebroplasty group compared with 31/422 (73 per 1000) in the control group; RR 1.29 (95% CI 0.46 to 3.62)). The incidence of other serious adverse events (five trials) was 16/408 (34 per 1000, range 18 to 62) in the vertebroplasty group compared with 23/413 (56 per 1000) in the control group; RR 0.61 (95% CI 0.33 to 1.10). Notably, serious adverse events reported with vertebroplasty included osteomyelitis, cord compression, thecal sac injury and respiratory failure.Our subgroup analyses indicate that the effects did not differ according to duration of pain (acute versus subacute). Including data from the eight trials that compared vertebroplasty with usual care in a sensitivity analyses altered the primary results, with all combined analyses displaying considerable heterogeneity.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found high- to moderate-quality evidence that vertebroplasty has little clinical benefit in terms of pain for treating acute or subacute osteoporotic vertebral fractures in routine practice when compared with a sham procedure. Results were consistent across the studies irrespective of the average duration of pain.Sensitivity analyses confirmed that open trials comparing vertebroplasty with usual care are likely to have overestimated any benefit of vertebroplasty. Correcting for these biases would likely drive any benefits observed with vertebroplasty towards the null, in keeping with findings from the placebo-controlled trials.Numerous serious adverse events have been observed following vertebroplasty. However due to the small number of events, we cannot be certain about whether or not vertebroplasty results in a clinically important increased risk of new symptomatic vertebral fractures and/or other serious adverse events. Patients should be informed about both the high- to moderate-quality evidence that shows no important benefit of vertebroplasty and its potential for harm.
To assess the efficacy and safety of non-biological therapies in patients with axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) to inform the update of the Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society (ASAS)/European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) recommendations for the management of axSpA. A systematic literature review (2009-2016) of all non-pharmacological treatments, non-biological drugs (except targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs)) and surgical therapies was performed. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and clinical controlled trials were assessed for efficacy and safety, while observational studies with a comparator were assessed for safety. All relevant efficacy and safety outcomes were included. Study heterogeneity precluded data pooling. If possible, Cohen's effect size was calculated for non-pharmacological treatments. In total, 45 papers and 2 abstracts were included. Studies on non-pharmacological treatments were very heterogeneous but overall confirmed a benefit for regular exercises, with small improvements in disease activity, function and spinal mobility. New studies on non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) confirmed their efficacy and new safety signals were not found. NSAIDs used continuously compared with on-demand did not reduce the modified Stoke Ankylosing Spondylitis Spinal Score (mSASSS) mean change over 2 years in patients with ankylosing spondylitis with normal C reactive protein (CRP; ≤ mg/L) (1 'negative' RCT (0.9 vs 0.8; p=0.62)), while for patients with high CRP, conflicting results were found (1 'positive' RCT (0.2 vs 1.7; p=0.003), 1 'negative' RCT (1.68 vs 0.96; p=0.28)). No new trials were found for conventional synthetic DMARDs (csDMARDs). Short-term high-dose systemic glucocorticoids showed limited efficacy. Regular exercises may improve several outcomes. Efficacy and safety of NSAIDs in axSpA are confirmed. Glucocorticoids are not proven to be effective in axSpA and new data on csDMARDs are lacking.
PURPOSE: To compare complications of percutaneous vertebroplasty (PVP) and balloon kyphoplasty (BKP) for the treatment of osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures (OVCFs).
BACKGROUND: PVP and BKP are two minimally invasive procedures for treating OVCFs, while few studies emphases attention to intra- and post-operative complications about the two procedures.
METHODS: Online databases were searched for studies comparing complications of PVP and BKP for OVCFs, the randomized controlled trials, clinical controlled trials and cohort studies that provided related data were identified. Demographic characteristics and complications related to procedures were extracted and analysed from all of the included studies.
RESULTS: Nineteen studies encompassing 1,787 patients in total, of whom 887 received PVP and 900 received BKP, met the inclusion criteria. For subsequent fractures, our meta-analysis detected no significant difference between the two procedures, both for adjacent fractures (p = 0.29) and non-adjacent fractures (p = 0.37). For cement extravasations, there was no significant difference between the two interventions if considering disc spaces extravasations only (p = 0.24), while considering total extravasations and paravertebral extravasations, the cement leakage rate in the PVP group was significantly higher than the BKP group (total: p < 0.01; paravertebral: p < 0.01).
CONCLUSIONS: The two procedures suffer from equal risk of subsequent spinal fractures; PVP has a significant higher cement leakage rate compared to BKP, mainly caused by a higher paravertebral leakage, patients with extremely poor pulmonary function or unstable haemodynamic are better candidates for BKP.
BACKGROUND: Surgical and non-surgical interventions are the two categories for treatment of vertebral compression fractures (VCFs). However, there is clinical uncertainty over optimal management. This study aimed to examine the safety and effectiveness of surgical management for treatment of VCFs with osteopenia compared with non-surgical treatment.
METHODS: We conducted a systematic search through electronic databases from inception to June 2014, with no limits on study data or language. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating surgical versus non-surgical interventions for treatment of patients with VCFs due to osteopenia were considered. Primary outcomes were pain and adverse effects. A random-effects model was used to calculate the pooled mean difference (MD) or risk ratios with 95% confidence interval (CI).
RESULTS: Sixteen reports (11 studies) met the inclusion criteria, and provided data for the meta-analysis with a total of 1,401 participants. Compared with conservative treatment, surgical treatment was more effective in reducing pain (short-term: MD -2.05, 95% CI -3.55 to -0.56, P=0.007; mid-term: MD -1.70, 95% CI -2.78 to -0.62, P=0.002; long-term: MD -1.24, 95% CI -2.20 to -0.29, P=0.01) and disability on the Roland-Morris Disability score (short-term: MD -4.97, 95% CI -8.71 to -1.23, P=0.009), as well as improving quality of life on the Short-Form 36 Physical Component Summary score (short-term: MD 5.53, 95% CI 1.45 to 9.61, P=0.008) and the Quality of Life Questionnaire of the European Foundation for Osteoporosis score (short-term: MD -5.01, 95% CI -8.11 to -1.91, P=0.002). Indirect comparisons between vertebroplasty and kyphoplasty found no evidence that the treatment effect differed across the two interventions for any outcomes assessed. Compared with the sham procedure, surgical treatment showed no evidence of improvement in pain relief and physical function. Based on these two comparisons, no significant difference between groups was noted in the pooled results for adverse events.
CONCLUSION: Compared to conservative treatment, surgical treatment was more effective in decreasing pain in the short,mid and long terms. However, no significant mid- and long-term differences in physical function and quality of life was observed. Little good evidence is available for surgical treatment compared with that for sham procedure. PV and BK are currently used to treat VCFs with osteopenia, with little difference in treatment effects. Evidence of better quality and from a larger sample size is required before a recommendation can be made.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO PROSPERO registration number: CRD42013005142.
OBJECTIVES: To analyse the impact of placebo effects on outcome in trials of selected minimally invasive procedures and to assess reported adverse events in both trial arms.
DESIGN: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SELECTION: We searched MEDLINE and Cochrane library to identify systematic reviews of musculoskeletal, neurological and cardiac conditions published between January 2009 and January 2014 comparing selected minimally invasive with placebo (sham) procedures. We searched MEDLINE for additional randomised controlled trials published between January 2000 and January 2014.
DATA SYNTHESIS: Effect sizes (ES) in the active and placebo arms in the trials' primary and pooled secondary end points were calculated. Linear regression was used to analyse the association between end points in the active and sham groups. Reported adverse events in both trial arms were registered.
RESULTS: We included 21 trials involving 2519 adult participants. For primary end points, there was a large clinical effect (ES≥0.8) after active treatment in 12 trials and after sham procedures in 11 trials. For secondary end points, 7 and 5 trials showed a large clinical effect. Three trials showed a moderate difference in ES between active treatment and sham on primary end points (ES ≥0.5) but no trials reported a large difference. No trials showed large or moderate differences in ES on pooled secondary end points. Regression analysis of end points in active treatment and sham arms estimated an R(2) of 0.78 for primary and 0.84 for secondary end points. Adverse events after sham were in most cases minor and of short duration.
CONCLUSIONS: The generally small differences in ES between active treatment and sham suggest that non-specific mechanisms, including placebo, are major predictors of the observed effects. Adverse events related to sham procedures were mainly minor and short-lived. Ethical arguments frequently raised against sham-controlled trials were generally not substantiated.
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.
BACKGROUND: Osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures (OVCFs) are the most common osteoporotic fractures. Pain is the main symptom. Percutaneous vertebroplasty (PVP) is a therapeutic procedure performed to reduce pain in vertebral compression fractures. Numerous case series and several small, non-blinded, non-randomized controlled studies have suggested that vertebroplasty is an effective means of relieving pain from osteoporotic fractures. However, a recent pooled analysis from 2 multicenter randomized controlled trials concluded that the improvement in pain afforded by PVP was similar to placebo.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the amount of pain reduction measured using the visual analog scale when OVCF is treated with vertebroplasty or conservatively, and assess the clinical utility of PVP.
DESIGN: A meta-analysis and systematic review of randomized controlled trials was performed comparing pain reduction following vertebroplasty and conservative treatment.
LIMITATIONS: There were few data sources from which to extract abstracted data or published studies. There were only 5 randomized controlled trials that met our criteria. The conservative treatments used as comparators in these trials were different.
METHODS: A search of MEDLINE from January 1980 to July 2012 using PubMed, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and Controlled Trials, CINAHL, and EMBASE. Relevant reports were examined by 2 independent reviewers and the references from these reports were searched for additional trials, using the criteria established in the QUOROM statement.
RESULTS: Pooled results from 5 randomized controlled trials are shown. There was no difference in pain relief in the PVP group at 2 weeks and one month when compared with the conservatively managed group. Pain relief in the PVP group was greater than that of the conservative group at 3 months, 6 months, and 12 months. However, after subgroup analysis, pain scores were similar between the PVP group and the sham injection group from 2 weeks to 6 months. Compared with non-operative therapy, PVP reduced pain at all times studied.
CONCLUSION: PVP has some value for relieving pain; however, the possibility of a placebo effect should be considered. PVP has gained acceptance as a complementary treatment when conservative management has failed before its benefits have been fully understood. More large scale, double blinded, controlled trials are necessary in order to quantify the pain relief afforded by PVP more precisely.
BACKGROUND: Osteoporotic vertebral compressed fractures (VCFs) are the most common osteoporotic fractures. Although percutaneous vertebroplasty (PVP) reportedly relieves pain and improves function, a recent pooled analysis from two multicenter randomized controlled trials concluded the improvement in pain and disability treated with PVP was similar to those with sham surgery.
QUESTIONS/PURPOSE: Using meta-analysis we therefore asked whether compared with either nonoperative therapy or a sham injection for patients with VCF, PVP would (1) better relieve pain, (2) provide greater improvement in pain-related disability, and (3) increase the recurrence of vertebral fractures.
METHODS: We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Medline, and the Cochrane library using the keywords "vertebroplasty AND osteoporosis OR fracture". We included nine of the 469 articles identified. Using a random effects model, we calculated the weighted mean differences to evaluate the pain reduction at different times as the primary outcome. Pain-related disability was assessed by a quality of life (QOL) measure. Improvement of QOL and recurrence of vertebral fractures were the secondary outcomes. We used subgroup analysis to reinvestigate pain relief and function improvement of PVP based on two different controls: nonoperative therapy and sham injection. The total number of patients was 886.
RESULTS: Pain scoring was similar between the PVP group and the sham injection group at 1 to 29 days and 90 days. However, compared with nonoperative therapy, PVP reduced pain at all times studied. QOL in the PVP group was improved or tended to be improved compared with QOL for both control groups. The risk of new fractures was similar between the PVP groups and both control groups.
CONCLUSIONS: Different control groups may have accounted for the different conclusions in the literature regarding the ability of PVP to relieve pain and restore function recovery. Compared with nonoperative treatment PVP relieved pain better and improved QOL. PVP did not increase the risk of new fractures.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II, therapeutic study. See Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
After more than two decades the treatment effect of cement augmentation of osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures (VCF) has now been questioned by two blinded randomised placebo-controlled trials. Thus many practitioners are uncertain on the recommendation for cement augmentation techniques in elderly patients with osteoporotic VCF. This systematic review analyses randomised controlled trials on vertebroplasty and kyphoplasty to provide an overview on the current evidence. From an electronic database research 8 studies could be identified meeting our inclusion criteria of osteoporotic VCF in elderly (age>60 years), treatment with vertebroplasty or kyphoplasty, controlled with placebo or standard medical therapy, quality of life, function, or pain as primary parameter, and randomisation. Only two studies were properly blinded using a sham-operation as control. The other studies were using a non-surgical treatment control group. Further possible bias may be caused by manufacturer involvement in financing of three published RCT. There is level Ib evidence that vertebroplasty is no better than placebo, which is conflicting with the available level IIb evidence that there is a positive short-term effect of cement augmentation compared to standard medical therapy with regard to QoL, function and pain. Kyphoplasty is not superior to vertebroplasty with regard to pain, but with regard to VCF reduction (evidence level IIb). Kyphoplasty is probably not cost-effective (evidence level IIb), and vertebroplasty has not more than short-term cost-effectiveness (evidence level IV). Vertebroplasty and kyphoplasty cannot be recommended as standard treatment for osteoporotic VCF. Ongoing sham-controlled trials may provide further evidence in this regard.
Journal»European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society
PURPOSE: To determine if differences in safety or efficacy exist between balloon kyphoplasty (BKP), vertebroplasty (VP) and non-surgical management (NSM) for the treatment of osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures (VCFs).
METHODS: As of February 1, 2011, a PubMed search (key words: kyphoplasty, vertebroplasty) resulted in 1,587 articles out of which 27 met basic selection criteria (prospective multiple-arm studies with cohorts of ≥ 20 patients). This systematic review adheres to preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.
RESULTS: Pain reduction in both BKP (-5.07/10 points, P < 0.01) and VP (-4.55/10, P < 0.01) was superior to that for NSM (-2.17/10), while no difference was found between BKP/VP (P = 0.35). Subsequent fractures occurred more frequently in the NSM group (22 %) compared with VP (11 %, P = 0.04) and BKP (11 %, P = 0.01). BKP resulted in greater kyphosis reduction than VP (4.8º vs. 1.7°, P < 0.01). Quality of life (QOL) improvement showed superiority of BKP over VP (P = 0.04), along with a trend for disability improvement (P = 0.08). Cement extravasation was less frequent in the BKP (P = 0.01). Surgical intervention within the first 7 weeks yielded greater pain reduction than VCFs treated later.
CONCLUSIONS: BKP/VP provided greater pain relief and fewer subsequent fractures than NSM in osteoporotic VCFs. BKP is marginally favored over VP in disability improvement, and significantly favored in QOL improvement. BKP had a lower risk of cement extravasation and resulted in greater kyphosis correction. Despite this analysis being restricted to Level I and II studies, significant heterogeneity suggests that the current literature is delivering inconsistent messages and further trials are needed to delineate confounding variables.
Percutaneous vertebroplasty remains widely used to treat osteoporotic vertebral fractures although our 2015 Cochrane review did not support its role in routine practice.
OBJECTIVES:
To update the available evidence of the benefits and harms of vertebroplasty for treatment of osteoporotic vertebral fractures.
SEARCH METHODS:
We updated the search of CENTRAL, MEDLINE and Embase and trial registries to 15 November 2017.
SELECTION CRITERIA:
We included randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of adults with painful osteoporotic vertebral fractures, comparing vertebroplasty with placebo (sham), usual care, or another intervention. As it is least prone to bias, vertebroplasty compared with placebo was the primary comparison. Major outcomes were mean overall pain, disability, disease-specific and overall health-related quality of life, patient-reported treatment success, new symptomatic vertebral fractures and number of other serious adverse events.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS:
We used standard methodologic procedures expected by Cochrane.
MAIN RESULTS:
Twenty-one trials were included: five compared vertebroplasty with placebo (541 randomised participants), eight with usual care (1136 randomised participants), seven with kyphoplasty (968 randomised participants) and one compared vertebroplasty with facet joint glucocorticoid injection (217 randomised participants). Trial size varied from 46 to 404 participants, most participants were female, mean age ranged between 62.6 and 81 years, and mean symptom duration varied from a week to more than six months.Four placebo-controlled trials were at low risk of bias and one was possibly susceptible to performance and detection bias. Other trials were at risk of bias for several criteria, most notably due to lack of participant and personnel blinding.Compared with placebo, high- to moderate-quality evidence from five trials indicates that vertebroplasty provides no clinically important benefits with respect to pain, disability, disease-specific or overall quality of life or treatment success at one month. Evidence for quality of life and treatment success was downgraded due to possible imprecision. Evidence was not downgraded for potential publication bias as only one placebo-controlled trial remains unreported. Mean pain (on a scale zero to 10, higher scores indicate more pain) was five points with placebo and 0.7 points better (0.3 better to 1.2 better) with vertebroplasty, an absolute pain reduction of 7% (3% better to 12% better, minimal clinical important difference is 15%) and relative reduction of 10% (4% better to 17% better) (five trials, 535 participants). Mean disability measured by the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (scale range zero to 23, higher scores indicate worse disability) was 14.2 points in the placebo group and 1.5 points better (0.4 better to 2.6 better) in the vertebroplasty group, absolute improvement 7% (2% to 11% better), relative improvement 9% better (2% to 15% better) (four trials, 472 participants).Disease-specific quality of life measured by the Quality of Life Questionnaire of the European Foundation for Osteoporosis (QUALEFFO) (scale zero to 100, higher scores indicating worse quality of life) was 62 points in the placebo group and 2.3 points better (1.4 points worse to 6.7 points better), an absolute imrovement of 2% (1% worse to 6% better); relative improvement 4% better (2% worse to 10% better) (three trials, 351 participants). Overall quality of life (European Quality of Life (EQ5D), zero = death to 1 = perfect health, higher scores indicate greater quality of life) was 0.38 points in the placebo group and 0.05 points better (0.01 better to 0.09 better) in the vertebroplasty group, absolute improvement: 5% (1% to 9% better), relative improvement: 18% (4% to 32% better) (three trials, 285 participants). In one trial (78 participants), 9/40 (or 225 per 1000) people perceived that treatment was successful in the placebo group compared with 12/38 (or 315 per 1000; 95% CI 150 to 664) in the vertebroplasty group, RR 1.40 (95% CI 0.67 to 2.95), absolute difference: 9% more reported success (11% fewer to 29% more); relative change: 40% more reported success (33% fewer to 195% more).Low-quality evidence (downgraded due to imprecision and potential for bias from the usual-care controlled trials) indicates uncertainty around the risk estimates of harms with vertebroplasty. The incidence of new symptomatic vertebral fractures (from six trials) was 48/418 (95 per 1000; range 34 to 264)) in the vertebroplasty group compared with 31/422 (73 per 1000) in the control group; RR 1.29 (95% CI 0.46 to 3.62)). The incidence of other serious adverse events (five trials) was 16/408 (34 per 1000, range 18 to 62) in the vertebroplasty group compared with 23/413 (56 per 1000) in the control group; RR 0.61 (95% CI 0.33 to 1.10). Notably, serious adverse events reported with vertebroplasty included osteomyelitis, cord compression, thecal sac injury and respiratory failure.Our subgroup analyses indicate that the effects did not differ according to duration of pain (acute versus subacute). Including data from the eight trials that compared vertebroplasty with usual care in a sensitivity analyses altered the primary results, with all combined analyses displaying considerable heterogeneity.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS:
We found high- to moderate-quality evidence that vertebroplasty has little clinical benefit in terms of pain for treating acute or subacute osteoporotic vertebral fractures in routine practice when compared with a sham procedure. Results were consistent across the studies irrespective of the average duration of pain.Sensitivity analyses confirmed that open trials comparing vertebroplasty with usual care are likely to have overestimated any benefit of vertebroplasty. Correcting for these biases would likely drive any benefits observed with vertebroplasty towards the null, in keeping with findings from the placebo-controlled trials.Numerous serious adverse events have been observed following vertebroplasty. However due to the small number of events, we cannot be certain about whether or not vertebroplasty results in a clinically important increased risk of new symptomatic vertebral fractures and/or other serious adverse events. Patients should be informed about both the high- to moderate-quality evidence that shows no important benefit of vertebroplasty and its potential for harm.
