4.5 Review

New vertebral fractures after osteoporotic vertebral compression fracture between balloon kyphoplasty and nonsurgical treatment PRISMA

期刊

MEDICINE
卷 97, 期 40, 页码 -

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000012666

关键词

balloon kyphoplasty; conservative treatment; kyphoplasty; meta-analysis; new osteoporotic compression vertebral fracture

资金

  1. Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC)
  2. University Nature Scientific Research Project of Anhui Province [KJ2017A832]
  3. Program for Science and Technology Development of Anhui Province [1704a0802158]
  4. Natural science foundation project of Anhui Province [1408085QH174]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Because of aging of population, osteoporotic vertebral compression fracture (OVCF) appears an increasing incidence rate.Conservative therapy (CT) and balloon kyphoplasty (BKP) have been used to treat OVCFs.However, an increase in new vertebral compression fractures at nontreated levels following BKP is of concern.It is still not clear whether new fractures were a result of BKP and the purpose of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the new fractures risk after BKP compared with CT. Methods: An exhaustive literature search of PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library was conducted to identify randomized controlled trials and prospective nonrandomized controlled study that compared BKP with CT for patients suffering OVCF.A random-effect model was used. Results: were reported as standardized mean difference or risk ratio with 95% confidence interval. Results: Twelve studies were included and there was no significant difference in total new fractures (P=.33) and adjacent fractures (P=.83) between 2 treatments.Subgroup analyses did not demonstrate significant differences in follow- up period, mean age, antiosteoporosis therapy, and the proportion of women. Conclusion: Our systematic review revealed that an increased risk of fracture of vertebral bodies was not associated with BKP compared with CT.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据