Ont Health Technol Assess Ser. 2010;10(19):1-45. Epub 2010 Oct 1.
OBJECTIVE OF ANALYSIS: The objective of this analysis is to examine the safety and effectiveness of percutaneous vertebroplasty for treatment of osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures (VCFs) compared with conservative treatment.
Osteoporosis and associated fractures are important health issues in ageing populations. Vertebral compression fracture secondary to osteoporosis is a cause of morbidity in older adults. VCFs can affect both genders, but are more common among elderly females and can occur as a result of a fall or a minor trauma. The fracture may occur spontaneously during a simple activity such as picking up an object or rising up from a chair. Pain originating from the fracture site frequently increases with weight bearing. It is most severe during the first few weeks and decreases with rest and inactivity. Traditional treatment of painful VCFs includes bed rest, analgesic use, back bracing and muscle relaxants. The comorbidities associated with VCFs include deep venous thrombosis, acceleration of osteopenea, loss of height, respiratory problems and emotional problems due to chronic pain. Percutaneous vertebroplasty is a minimally invasive surgical procedure that has gained popularity as a new treatment option in the care for these patients. The technique of vertebroplasty was initially developed in France to treat osteolytic metastasis, myeloma, and hemangioma. The indications were further expanded to painful osteoporotic VCFs and subsequently to treatment of asymptomatic VCFs. The mechanism of pain relief, which occurs within minutes to hours after vertebroplasty, is still not known. Pain pathways in the surrounding tissue appear to be altered in response to mechanical, chemical, vascular, and thermal stimuli after the injection of the cement. It has been suggested that mechanisms other than mechanical stabilization of the fracture, such as thermal injury to the nerve endings, results in immediate pain relief.
Percutaneous vertebroplasty is performed with the patient in prone position and under local or general anesthesia. The procedure involves fluoroscopic imaging to guide the injection of bone cement into the fractured vertebral body to support the fractured bone. After injection of the cement, the patient is placed in supine position for about 1 hour while the cement hardens. Cement leakage is the most frequent complication of vertebroplasty. The leakages may remain asymptomatic or cause symptoms of nerve irritation through compression of nerve roots. There are several reports of pulmonary cement embolism (PCE) following vertebroplasty. In some cases, the PCE may remain asymptomatic. Symptomatic PCE can be recognized by their clinical signs and symptoms such as chest pain, dyspnea, tachypnea, cyanosis, coughing, hemoptysis, dizziness, and sweating.
A literature search was performed on Feb 9, 2010 using OVID MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, EMBASE, the Cumulative Index to Nursing & Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), the Cochrane Library, and the International Agency for Health Technology Assessment (INAHTA) for studies published from January 1, 2005 to February 9, 2010. Studies were initially reviewed by titles and abstracts. For those studies meeting the eligibility criteria, full-text articles were obtained and reviewed. Reference lists were also examined for any additional relevant studies not identified through the search. Articles with an unknown eligibility were reviewed with a second clinical epidemiologist and then a group of epidemiologists until consensus was established. Data extraction was carried out by the author.
Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing vertebroplasty with a control group or other interventions
Adult patients with osteoporotic vertebral fracturesSTUDY SAMPLE SIZE: Studies included 20 or more patientsEnglish language full-reportsPublished between Jan 1 2005 and Feb 9, 2010(eligible studies identified through the Auto Alert function of the search were also included)
Non-randomized studiesStudies on conditions other than VCF (e.g. patients with multiple myeloma or metastatic tumors)Studies focused on surgical techniquesStudies lacking outcome measures RESULTS OF EVIDENCE-BASED ANALYSIS: A systematic search yielded 168 citations. The titles and the abstracts of the citations were reviewed and full text of the identified citations was retrieved for further consideration. Upon review of the full publications and applying the inclusion and exclusion criteria, 5 RCTs were identified. Of these, two compared vertebroplasty with sham procedure, two compared vertebroplasty with conservative treatment, and one compared vertebroplasty with balloon kyphoplasty.
Recently, the results of two blinded randomized placebo-controlled trials of percutaneous vertebroplasty were reported. These trials, providing the highest quality of evidence available to date, do not support the use of vertebroplasty in patients with painful osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures. Based on the results of these trials, vertebroplasty offer no additional benefit over usual care and is not risk free. In these trials the treatment allocation was blinded to the patients and outcome assessors. The control group received a sham procedure simulating vertebroplasty to minimize the effect of expectations and to reduce the potential for bias in self-reporting of outcomes. Both trials applied stringent exclusion criteria so that the results are generalizable to the patient populations that are candidates for vertebroplasty. In both trials vertebroplasty procedures were performed by highly skilled interventionists. Multiple valid outcome measures including pain, physical, mental, and social function were employed to test the between group differences in outcomes. Prior to these two trials, there were two open randomized trials in which vertebroplasty was compared with conservative medical treatment. In the first randomized trial, patients were allowed to cross over to the other arm and had to be stopped after two weeks due to the high numbers of patients crossing over. The other study did not allow cross over and recently published the results of 12 months follow-up. The following is the summary of the results of these 4 trials: Two blinded RCTs on vertebroplasty provide the highest level of evidence available to date. Results of these two trials are supported by findings of an open randomized trial with 12 months follow-up. Blinded RCTs showed: No significant differences in pain scores of patients who received vertebroplasty and patients who received a sham procedure as measured at 3 days, 2 weeks and 1 month in one study and at 1 week, 1 month, 3 months, and 6 months in the other.The observed differences in pain scores between the two groups were neither statistically significant nor clinically important at any time points.The above findings were consistent with the findings of an open RCT in which patients were followed for 12 months. This study showed that improvement in pain was similar between the two groups at 3 months and were sustained to 12 months.In the blinded RCTs, physical, mental, and social functioning were measured at the above time points using 4-5 of the following 7 instruments: RDQ, EQ-5D, SF-36 PCS, SF-36 MCS, AQoL, QUALEFFO, SOF-ADLThere were no significant differences in any of these measures between patients who received vertebroplasty and patients who received a sham procedure at any of the above time points (with a few exceptions in favour of control intervention).These findings were also consistent with the findings of an open RCT which demonstrated no significant between group differences in scores of ED-5Q, SF-36 PCS, SF 36 MCS, DPQ, Barthel, and MMSE which measure physical, mental, and social functioning (with a few exceptions in favour of control intervention).One small (n=34) open RCT with a two week follow-up detected a significantly higher improvement in pain scores at 1 day after the intervention in vertebroplasty group compared with conservative treatment group. However, at 2 weeks follow-up, this difference was smaller and was not statistically significant.Conservative treatment was associated with fewer clinically important complicationsRisk of new VCFs following vertebroplasty was higher than those in conservative treatment but it requires further investigation.
分析目的:本分析旨在研究经皮椎体成形术治疗骨质疏松性椎体压缩骨折(VCF)相较于保守治疗的安全性和有效性。
骨质疏松症及相关骨折是老年人群中的重要健康问题。骨质疏松继发的椎体压缩骨折是老年人发病的一个原因。VCF可发生于两性,但在老年女性中更为常见,可能因跌倒或轻微外伤所致。骨折可能在诸如捡东西或从椅子上起身等简单活动中自发发生。骨折部位产生的疼痛通常在负重时加剧。在最初几周最为严重,休息和不活动时会减轻。疼痛性VCF的传统治疗方法包括卧床休息、使用镇痛药、背部支具和肌肉松弛剂。与VCF相关的合并症包括深静脉血栓形成、骨质减少加速、身高降低、呼吸问题以及因慢性疼痛导致的情绪问题。经皮椎体成形术是一种微创手术,作为这些患者护理中的一种新治疗选择已受到欢迎。椎体成形术技术最初在法国开发用于治疗溶骨性转移瘤、骨髓瘤和血管瘤。其适应证进一步扩展至疼痛性骨质疏松性VCF,随后又扩展至无症状VCF的治疗。椎体成形术后数分钟至数小时内出现疼痛缓解的机制仍不清楚。注射骨水泥后,周围组织中的疼痛传导通路似乎因机械、化学、血管和热刺激而发生改变。有人认为,除了骨折的机械稳定作用外,其他机制,如对神经末梢的热损伤,可导致立即疼痛缓解。
经皮椎体成形术在患者俯卧位、局部或全身麻醉下进行。该手术包括在荧光透视成像引导下将骨水泥注入骨折椎体以支撑骨折部位。注入骨水泥后,患者需仰卧约1小时直至骨水泥硬化。骨水泥渗漏是椎体成形术最常见的并发症。渗漏可能无症状,也可能通过压迫神经根引起神经刺激症状。有几篇关于椎体成形术后肺水泥栓塞(PCE)的报道。在某些情况下,PCE可能无症状。有症状的PCE可通过胸痛、呼吸困难、呼吸急促、发绀、咳嗽、咯血、头晕和出汗等临床症状识别。
2010年2月9日,使用OVID MEDLINE、MEDLINE在研及其他未索引引文、EMBASE、护理及相关健康文献累积索引(CINAHL)、Cochrane图书馆和国际卫生技术评估机构(INAHTA)对2005年1月1日至2010年2月9日发表的研究进行了文献检索。研究最初通过标题和摘要进行审查。对于符合纳入标准的研究,获取全文并进行审查。还检查了参考文献列表以查找通过检索未识别出的任何其他相关研究。对资格不明的文章由第二位临床流行病学家进行审查,然后由一组流行病学家进行审查,直至达成共识。数据提取由作者进行。
比较椎体成形术与对照组或其他干预措施的随机对照试验(RCT)
患有骨质疏松性椎体骨折的成年患者
研究纳入20名或更多患者
英文全文报告
发表时间为2005年1月1日至2010年2月9日(通过检索自动提醒功能识别的符合条件的研究也包括在内)
非随机研究
关于VCF以外疾病的研究(如患有骨髓瘤或转移性肿瘤的患者)
专注于手术技术的研究
缺乏结局指标
系统检索产生168条引文。对引文的标题和摘要进行了审查,并检索了已识别引文全文以供进一步考虑。在审查全文出版物并应用纳入和排除标准后,确定了5项RCT。其中,两项比较了椎体成形术与假手术,两项比较了椎体成形术与保守治疗,一项比较了椎体成形术与球囊后凸成形术。
最近,报道了两项经皮椎体成形术的双盲随机安慰剂对照试验结果。这些试验提供了迄今为止最高质量的证据,不支持在疼痛性骨质疏松性椎体压缩骨折患者中使用椎体成形术。基于这些试验结果,椎体成形术相较于常规护理无额外益处,且并非无风险。在这些试验中,治疗分配对患者和结局评估者均为盲法。对照组接受模拟椎体成形术的假手术,以尽量减少期望效应并降低自我报告结局时的潜在偏倚。两项试验均应用了严格的排除标准,因此结果可推广至椎体成形术候选患者群体。在两项试验中,椎体成形术均由技术熟练的干预专家进行。采用了包括疼痛、身体功能、心理功能和社会功能在内的多种有效结局指标来测试组间结局差异。在这两项试验之前,有两项开放性随机试验将椎体成形术与保守药物治疗进行了比较。在第一项随机试验中,患者可交叉至另一组,由于交叉患者数量众多,两周后试验不得不停止。另一项研究不允许交叉,并最近公布了12个月随访结果。以下是这4项试验结果的总结:两项关于椎体成形术的双盲RCT提供了迄今为止最高水平的证据。这两项试验的结果得到了一项随访12个月的开放性随机试验结果的支持。双盲RCT显示:一项研究中,在3天、2周和1个月时,接受椎体成形术的患者与接受假手术的患者疼痛评分无显著差异;另一项研究中,在1周、月、3个月和6个月时也无显著差异。两组间观察到的疼痛评分差异在任何时间点均无统计学意义且无临床重要性。上述发现与一项随访12个月的开放性RCT结果一致。该研究表明,两组在3个月时疼痛改善情况相似,并持续至12个月。在双盲RCT中,在上述时间点使用以下7种工具中的4 - 5种测量身体、心理和社会功能:RDQ、EQ - 5D、SF - 36 PCS、SF - 36 MCS、AQoL、QUALEFFO、SOF - ADL。在上述任何时间点,接受椎体成形术的患者与接受假手术的患者在这些测量指标中均无显著差异(有少数例外支持对照干预)。这些发现也与一项开放性RCT结果一致,该研究表明在测量身体、心理和社会功能的ED - 5Q、SF - 36 PCS、SF 36 MCS、DPQ、Barthel和MMSE评分中,两组间无显著差异(有少数例外支持对照干预)。一项小型(n = 34)随访两周的开放性RCT发现,椎体成形术组干预后1天的疼痛评分改善明显高于保守治疗组。然而,在2周随访时,这种差异较小且无统计学意义。保守治疗相关的临床重要并发症较少。椎体成形术后新发VCF的风险高于保守治疗,但这需要进一步研究。