• Donghua Liu, Tianlin Wen, Xingxuan Li, Zongjun Xie, Mingzhu Wei, Yi Wang, Hao Tang, and Zhiwei Jia.
• Department of Orthopedics, Dongzhimen Hospital, Beijing University of Chinese Medicine, Beijing, China.
• Pain Physician. 2024 May 1; 27 (4): E383E394E383-E394.

BackgroundNumerous meta-analyses and systematic reviews have explored the differences between percutaneous vertebroplasty (PVP) and percutaneous balloon kyphoplasty (PKP) for treating osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures (OVCFs), however, their final conclusions have been inconsistent. The inconsistent conclusions drawn from these meta-analyses create uncertainty among clinicians about the best treatment approach for OVCFs.ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to conduct a cross-sectional analysis of overlapping meta-analyses comparing PVP and PKP treatments for OVCF in order to help clinicians have access to the best available evidence and provide treatment recommendations based on the best available evidence.Study DesignA cross-sectional analysis of overlapping meta-analyses.MethodsWe conducted a comprehensive search of meta-analyses published up to February 2023 in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library and Web of Science databases to identify relevant studies. The methodological quality of these studies was assessed using the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews tool (original AMSTAR) and the Oxford Centre for Evidence-based Medicine Levels of Evidence. Two researchers independently extracted the data and assessed the quality of these meta-analyses. To determine which meta-analyses represented the best evidence, we employed the Jadad decision algorithm.ResultsSeventeen meta-analyses were included in the study, with AMSTAR scores ranging from 4 to 9, with an average of 7. After rigorous scrutiny, the Zhu et al study was determined to provide the best evidence. According to their findings, both PVP and PKP effectively alleviate pain and improve function in the treatment of OVCFs, without any statistically significant differences between them. In addition, PKP can reduce the risk of polymethylmethacrylate leakage compared to PVP.LimitationsThis study analyzed published overlapping meta-analyses, inherently confining our investigation to the meta-analysis level. Furthermore, based on the AMSTAR scores, several included studies exhibited lower methodological quality.ConclusionsCurrently, the best evidence indicates that PVP and PKP are equally effective at alleviating pain and enhancing function in the treatment of OVCFs, but PKP had a lower incidence of polymethylmethacrylate leakage. However, there is still a need for high-quality randomized controlled trials to provide higher levels of evidence regarding other aspects of the differences between the 2 procedures.

19 keywords...

hide…