Which is the best treatment of osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures: balloon kyphoplasty, percutaneous vertebroplasty, or non-surgical treatment? A Bayesian network meta-analysis

• Published in: Osteoporosis international 2019-02, Vol.30 (2), p.287-298
• Main Authors: Zhu, R.-S., Kan, S.-L., Ning, G.-Z., Chen, L.-X., Cao, Z.-G., Jiang, Z.-H., Zhang, X.-L., Hu, W.
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Back Pain - therapy; Balloon treatment; Bayes Theorem; Bayesian analysis; Bone surgery; Clinical trials; Compression; Endocrinology; Fractures; Fractures, Compression - therapy; Humans; Kyphoplasty - methods; Medicine; Medicine & Public Health; Meta-analysis; Original Article; Orthopedics; Osteoporosis; Osteoporotic Fractures - therapy; Pain; Patients; Quality of Life; Recurrence; Rheumatology; Risk assessment; Spinal Fractures - therapy; Vertebrae; Vertebroplasty - methods
• ISSN: 0937-941X; 1433-2965
• DOI: 10.1007/s00198-018-4804-2

Summary The aim of the current study was to use a Bayesian network meta-analysis to evaluate the relative benefits and risks of balloon kyphoplasty (BK), percutaneous vertebroplasty (PVP), and non-surgical treatment (NST) for patients with osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures (OVCFs). The results demonstrate that for pain and functional status, PVP was significantly better than NST, while the three treatments did not significantly differ in other outcomes. Introduction BK, PVP, and NST are widely used to treat OVCFs, but preferable treatment is unknown. The aim of the current study was to use a Bayesian network meta-analysis to evaluate the relative benefits and risks of BK, PVP, and NST for patients with OVCFs. Methods PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library were screened. Based on the preplanned eligibility criteria, we screened and included randomized controlled trials that compared BK, PVP, and NST in treating patients with OVCFs. The risk of bias for individual studies was appraised. The data were pooled using a Bayesian network meta-analysis and a traditional direct comparison meta-analysis. Results Of the 1057 relevant studies, 15 were eligible and included. Compared with NST, PVP significantly reduced pain, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and Roland–Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ). The comparative efficacy of BK and PVP was similar for pain (mean difference (MD) 0.51, 95% credible interval (CrI) − 0.35 to 1.4), ODI (MD 0.11, 95% CrI − 13 to 13), and RMDQ (MD 1.2, 95% CrI − 2.7 to 5.4). The European Quality of Life–5 Dimensions (EQ–5D) and Physical Component Summary subscales of the Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short-Form General Health Survey (SF-36 PCS) did not differ significantly. There were also no substantial differences in the risks of subsequent vertebral fractures, adjacent vertebral fractures, and re-fractures at the treated level across all comparators. The results of pairwise meta-analyses were almost consistent with those of network meta-analyses. The treatment ranking indicated that PVP had the highest probability of being the most effective for pain, ODI, RMDQ, and EQ-5D. BK had the highest probability of improving SF-36 PCS and of reducing the risk of subsequent vertebral fractures and re-fractures at the treated level. NST was ranked first in preventing adjacent vertebral fractures. Conclusion PVP was the most effective method for improving pain, functional status, and quality of life (based on EQ-5D). BK emerged