IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0299325.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A meta-analysis comparing the efficacy of mineralized collagen-polymethylmethacrylate and polymethylmethacrylate bone cements in the treatment of vertebral compression fractures

Author

Listed:
  • Song-feng Li
  • Xi-yong Li
  • Xiao-hui Bai
  • Yun-lu Wang
  • Peng-fei Han
  • Hong-zhuo Li

Abstract

Purpose: Vertebral compression fractures are often treated with vertebroplasty, and filling the injured vertebrae with bone cement is a key part of vertebroplasty. This meta-analysis was performed to compare the clinical efficacy and safety of mineralized collagen—polymethylmethacrylate (MC-PMMA) and polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) bone cement in the treatment of vertebral compression fractures by vertebroplasty. Methods: A computerized search of the published literature on mineralized collagen-polymethylmethacrylate and polymethylmethacrylate bone cement in the treatment of vertebral compression fractures was conducted in the China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang database, PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library. The search was carried out from the time the database was created to March 2023 and 2 researchers independently conducted literature searches to retrieve a total of 884 studies, of which 12 were included in this meta-analysis. Cochrane systematic review methods were used to assess the quality of the literature and a meta-analysis was performed using ReviewManager 5.4 software. Results: The results of the present meta-analysis showed that in postoperative adjacent vertebral fractures [OR = 0.25; 95% CI (0.15, 0.41)], postoperative cement leakage [OR = 0.45; 95% CI (0.30, 0.68)], Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores in the first 3 days after surgery [OR = -0.22; 95% CI (-0.42, -0.03)], ODI score at 6–12 months postoperatively [OR = -0.65; 95% CI (-0.97, -0.32)], visual analog scale (VAS) score at 6–12 months postoperatively [OR = -0.21; 95% CI (-0.46, 0.04)], and 1-year postoperative CT values [OR = 5.56; 95% CI (3.06, 8.06)], the MC-PMMA bone cement group was superior to the PMMA bone cement group. However, the differences between the two groups were not statistically different in terms of cement filling time, cement filling volume, operation time, intraoperative bleeding, hospitalization time, postoperative ( 6 months), but there is still a need for more high-quality randomized controlled studies to provide more adequate evidence.

Suggested Citation

  • Song-feng Li & Xi-yong Li & Xiao-hui Bai & Yun-lu Wang & Peng-fei Han & Hong-zhuo Li, 2024. "A meta-analysis comparing the efficacy of mineralized collagen-polymethylmethacrylate and polymethylmethacrylate bone cements in the treatment of vertebral compression fractures," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 19(3), pages 1-19, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0299325
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0299325
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0299325
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0299325&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0299325?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:pone00:0299325. 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.