4.5 Article

Do bisphosphonates affect bone healing? A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Journal

Publisher

BIOMED CENTRAL LTD
DOI: 10.1186/1749-799X-9-45

Keywords

Bisphosphonates; Indirect bone healing; Lumbar fusion; Randomized controlled trials; Meta-analysis

Categories

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81271973, 81201397]
  2. Zhejiang Provincial Natural Science Foundation of China [Y2090283]
  3. Zhejiang medical and health science and technology plan project [2011ZDA011]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Whether bisphosphonates affect indirect bone healing is still unclear. Method: We carried out a comprehensive search strategy. Only randomized controlled trials were included. Two reviewers independently assessed methodological qualities and extracted outcome data. Analysis was performed with RevMan 5.2. Results: Eight eligible randomized controlled trials with 2,508 patients were included. Meta-analysis results showed that no statistically significant differences were founded in indirect bone healing in short time (within 3 months) (relative risk (RR) 1.40, relative the control group; 95% CI 0.36 to 5.49) and in long-term (more than 12 months) postoperation (RR 1.0; 95% CI 0.98 to 1.02) between bisphosphonates infusion groups and control groups. There were no statistically significant differences of indirect bone healing between early and delay bisphosphonates administration groups. Bisphosphonates infusion after lumbar infusion surgery could promote bone healing and shorten fusion time in 6 months postoperation (RR 1.35; 95% CI 1.11 to 1.66). Conclusion: There was no clinically detectable delay to fracture healing via external callus formation following bisphosphonates treatment. Considering the benefit aspects of bisphosphonates for osteoporosis treatment, we recommend bisphosphonates infusion after fracture fixation surgery and lumbar fusion surgery.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available