Department of Orthopedic Trauma, Peking University Third Hospital, Beijing, China.
Peking University Sixth Hospital, Beijing, China.
Pain Physician. 2019 Jan;22(1):15-28.
There have been many meta-analyses and systematic reviews that have discussed the differences between unilateral and bilateral balloon kyphoplasty. However, their conclusions regarding the efficacy and safety of bilateral balloon kyphoplasty in the treatment of osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures (OVCFs) are discordant.
We attempted to select the best evidence review to determine the differences between unilateral and bilateral balloon kyphoplasty, and we wanted to determine the best treatment approach for OVCFs.
A systematic review of overlapping meta-analyses.
The electronic databases of PubMed, Embase and The Cochrane Library were searched. The search extended through Sept. 30, 2017. Moreover, we manually searched the last 10 years of conference reports and papers from the Peking University Health Science Library and consulted 2 experts in the field for any additional relevant information.
We followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) Statement and used "A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews" (AMTASR) and the Oxford Levels of Evidence to assess the methodological quality of the studies. We applied the Jadad decision algorithm to select the best evidence review.
Seven meta-analyses were included in this systematic review. The AMTASR scores of the studies ranged from 4 to 9, with an average of 6. Finally, Sun H et al was shown to represent the best evidence study. Sun H et al proposed that the unilateral kyphoplasty required less surgical time and consumed less cement, reduced cement leakage, and improved short-term general health compared with that of bilateral kyphoplasty.
The AMTASR scores indicated that some of the included studies were of low quality. In addition, not all of the studies used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) level. When used, the GRADE level indicated that most of the results consisted of studies of low quality.
Unilateral kyphoplasty reduces the operative time, cement volume, and cement leakage rate compared with bilateral kyphoplasty. Therefore, we conclude that unilateral kyphoplasty is more advantageous, effective and safe, compared to bilateral kyphoplasty for the treatment of OVCFs.
Osteoporotic vertebral compression fracture, kyphoplasty, unilateral, bilateral, unipedicular, bipedicular, systematic review.
已有许多荟萃分析和系统评价讨论了单侧和双侧球囊扩张椎体后凸成形术之间的差异。然而,它们关于双侧球囊扩张椎体后凸成形术治疗骨质疏松性椎体压缩性骨折(OVCFs)的疗效和安全性的结论并不一致。
我们试图选择最佳的证据综述来确定单侧和双侧球囊扩张椎体后凸成形术之间的差异,并确定治疗 OVCFs 的最佳方法。
重叠荟萃分析的系统评价。
检索 PubMed、Embase 和 The Cochrane Library 的电子数据库。搜索范围截止到 2017 年 9 月 30 日。此外,我们手动检索了北京大学医学图书馆近 10 年的会议报告和论文,并咨询了 2 位该领域的专家,以获取任何其他相关信息。
我们遵循系统评价和荟萃分析的首选报告项目(PRISMA)声明,并使用“评估系统评价的测量工具”(AMTASR)和牛津证据水平来评估研究的方法学质量。我们应用 Jadad 决策算法来选择最佳证据综述。
本系统评价纳入了 7 项荟萃分析。研究的 AMTASR 评分范围为 4 至 9 分,平均 6 分。最终,孙赫等人的研究被认为是最佳证据研究。孙赫等人提出,与双侧后凸成形术相比,单侧后凸成形术需要的手术时间更短,消耗的骨水泥更少,减少了骨水泥渗漏,并改善了短期总体健康状况。
AMTASR 评分表明,一些纳入的研究质量较低。此外,并非所有研究都使用了推荐评估、制定和评估(GRADE)水平。当使用时,GRADE 水平表明大多数结果来自于低质量的研究。
与双侧后凸成形术相比,单侧后凸成形术可减少手术时间、骨水泥量和骨水泥渗漏率。因此,我们得出结论,与双侧后凸成形术相比,单侧后凸成形术在治疗 OVCFs 方面更具优势、更有效、更安全。
骨质疏松性椎体压缩性骨折;后凸成形术;单侧;双侧;单侧入路;双侧入路;系统评价。