Appropriateness criteria for treatment of osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures

• Published in: Osteoporosis international 2018-04, Vol.29 (4), p.793-804
• Main Authors: Luthman, S., Widén, J., Borgström, F.
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Balloon treatment; Bone surgery; Clinical medicine; Compression; Endocrinology; Fractures; Fractures, Compression - therapy; Humans; Kyphoplasty; Medicin och hälsovetenskap; Medicine; Medicine & Public Health; Orthopedics; Osteoporosis; Osteoporotic Fractures - therapy; Pain; Patient Selection; Patients; Review; Rheumatology; Risk Assessment - methods; Spinal Fractures - therapy; Vertebrae; Vertebroplasty
• ISSN: 0937-941X; 1433-2965; 1433-2965
• DOI: 10.1007/s00198-017-4348-x

The purpose of this study was to review and summarise the literature on appropriateness criteria for treatment of osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures (OVCF), with appropriateness defined as a treatment where the expected benefits outweigh the expected harms, confirmed by available evidence and expert opinion. A comprehensive search of peer-reviewed publications (PubMed, EMBASE) and grey literature was performed. To be included for analysis, documents had to be a review article (e.g. clinical guideline or meta-analysis), focus on OVCF and make a statement on treatment appropriateness. Eleven publications fulfilled the eligibility criteria. Among the five publications that made recommendations about non-surgical management (NSM), there is agreement that conservative methods are appropriate in OVCF patients who have low level of pain, and that the majority of patients should be treated with conservative methods before other treatments are initiated. All publications made recommendations about vertebral augmentation procedures (VAP), i.e. vertebroplasty (VP) and/or balloon kyphoplasty (BKP). VAP are mostly considered appropriate in patients with high level of pain who do not respond to NSM. However, results cannot be generalised due to heterogeneity of treatment recommendations and patient selection. Although there is a consensus that NSM should be considered as the first-line treatment, there is more heterogeneity in treatment recommendations for VAP. This could most likely be explained by an insufficient clinical evidence base for VAP and heterogeneity of OVCF patients, leading to greater reliance on expert opinion affecting the quality of evidence in the primary sources.