National Yang Ming University, Taipei, Taiwan.
Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Linkou Branch, Taoyuan 333, Taiwan.
Eur Spine J. 2021 Sep;30(9):2680-2690. doi: 10.1007/s00586-020-06636-9. Epub 2020 Nov 13.
This study aims to determine whether outcomes following vertebroplasty with high viscosity cement are superior to low viscosity cement and non-inferior to kyphoplasty in the setting of vertebral compression fractures.
We searched for randomized controlled trials and cohort studies assessing cement leakage rate in adult patients with VCFs who underwent vertebroplasty with high (HVCV) or low viscosity cement (LVCV) augmentation, or kyphoplasty (KP) in PubMed, Embase, Ovid, The Cochrane Library, and Web of Science from inception up to December 2019. Two authors extracted data and appraised risk of bias. We performed pairwise meta-analyses in R to compare differences between three treatments and network meta-analysis using frequentist random-effects models for indirect comparison. We used P-score to rate the overall certainty of evidence. The primary outcome was cement leakage rate.
Five RCTs and eight cohort studies with 840 patients and a total of 1280 vertebral bodies were included in the systematic review and network meta-analysis. Compared to LVCV, the relative risk for cement leakage following HVCV and KP was 0.42 (95% CI 0.28-0.61) and 0.83 (95% CI 0.40-1.68), respectively. Our pooled results suggested that HVCV (P-score = 0.99) was better than KP (P-score = 0.36) in cement leakage rate.
The present network meta-analysis demonstrated that HVCV may be associated with lower risk of cement leakage among patients with VCFs as compared to other augmentation techniques. Future prospective studies will validate the findings of this analysis and further elucidate the risk of symptomatic cement leakage.
本研究旨在确定在椎体压缩性骨折的情况下,高粘度水泥(HVCV)与低粘度水泥(LVCV)增强椎骨成形术相比,以及与后凸成形术(KP)相比,HVCV 治疗的结果是否更优。
我们在 PubMed、Embase、Ovid、The Cochrane Library 和 Web of Science 中检索了从成立到 2019 年 12 月,评估成人 VCF 患者接受 HVCV 或 LVCV 增强椎骨成形术或 KP 后水泥渗漏率的随机对照试验和队列研究。两名作者提取数据并评估了偏倚风险。我们使用 R 中的成对 meta 分析比较了三种治疗方法之间的差异,并使用频繁性随机效应模型进行了间接比较的网络 meta 分析。我们使用 P 评分来评估证据的总体确定性。主要结局是水泥渗漏率。
纳入系统评价和网络 meta 分析的共有 5 项 RCT 和 8 项队列研究,共 840 名患者,共 1280 个椎体。与 LVCV 相比,HVCV 和 KP 治疗后水泥渗漏的相对风险分别为 0.42(95%CI 0.28-0.61)和 0.83(95%CI 0.40-1.68)。我们的汇总结果表明,HVCV(P 评分=0.99)在水泥渗漏率方面优于 KP(P 评分=0.36)。
本网络 meta 分析表明,与其他增强技术相比,HVCV 可能与 VCF 患者较低的水泥渗漏风险相关。未来的前瞻性研究将验证本分析的结果,并进一步阐明有症状的水泥渗漏风险。