4.7 Article

Vertebral augmentation reduces the 12-month mortality and morbidity in patients with osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures

期刊

EUROPEAN RADIOLOGY
卷 31, 期 11, 页码 8246-8255

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00330-021-07985-9

关键词

Osteoporosis; Spinal fractures; Vertebroplasty; Kyphoplasty; Conservative treatment

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In comparison to NSM, the study shows that VP/BKP can reduce the 12-month risk of all-cause mortality and morbidity in patients with OVCFs by 19% and 36%, respectively. Furthermore, VP/BKP reduces the 12-month risk of infection from any origin by 77%.
Objectives To investigate the 12-month all-cause mortality and morbidity in patients with osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures (OVCFs) undergoing vertebroplasty/balloon kyphoplasty (VP/BKP) versus non-surgical management (NSM). Methods Following a Medline and EMBASE search for English language articles published from 2010 to 2019, 19 studies reporting on mortality and morbidity after VP/BKP in patients with OVCFs were selected. The 12-month timeline was set due to the largest amount of data availability at such time interval. Estimates for each study were reported as odds ratios (OR) along with 95% confidence intervals (CI) and p values. Fixed or random-effects meta-analyses were performed. All tests were based on a two-sided significance level of 0.05. Results Pooled OR across 5 studies favored VP/BKP over NSM in terms of 12-month all-cause mortality (OR: 0.81 [95% CI: 0.46-1.42]; p = .46). Pooled OR across 11 studies favored VP/BKP over NSM in terms of 12-month all-cause morbidity (OR: 0.64 [95% CI: 0.31-1.30]; p = .25). Sub-analysis of data dealing with 12-month infective morbidity from any origin confirmed the benefit of VP/BKP over NSM (OR: 0.23 [95% CI, 0.02-2.54]; p = .23). Conclusion Compared to NSM, VP/BKP reduces the 12-month risk of all-cause mortality and morbidity by 19% and 36%, respectively. Moreover, VP/BKP reduces by 77% the 12-month risk of infection from any origin.

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

4.7
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