IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0127145.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Surgical Versus Non-Surgical Treatment for Vertebral Compression Fracture with Osteopenia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Jia-Bao Guo
  • Yi Zhu
  • Bing-Lin Chen
  • Bin Xie
  • Wen-Yi Zhang
  • Yu-Jie Yang
  • Yu-Shan Yue
  • Xue-Qiang Wang

Abstract

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Jia-Bao Guo & Yi Zhu & Bing-Lin Chen & Bin Xie & Wen-Yi Zhang & Yu-Jie Yang & Yu-Shan Yue & Xue-Qiang Wang, 2015. "Surgical Versus Non-Surgical Treatment for Vertebral Compression Fracture with Osteopenia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(5), pages 1-20, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0127145
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0127145
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0127145
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0127145&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0127145?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0127145. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.