• Eur Spine J · Nov 2016

    Review Meta Analysis

    Comparison of unilateral versus bilateral percutaneous kyphoplasty for the treatment of patients with osteoporosis vertebral compression fracture (OVCF): a systematic review and meta-analysis.

    • Xing Cheng, Hou-Qing Long, Jing-Hui Xu, Yang-Liang Huang, and Fo-Bao Li.
    • Department of Spine Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, 510080, People's Republic of China.
    • Eur Spine J. 2016 Nov 1; 25 (11): 3439-3449.

    PurposeTo compare the short- and long-term clinical outcomes, operation times, restoration rate, dosage of polymethylmeth-acrylate (PMMA) injected, complications and X-rays exposure frequency between unilateral and bilateral kyphoplasty approaches for the treatment of OVCF.Study DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis.MethodsRandomized or non-randomized controlled trials published up to April 2015 that compared the unilateral and bilateral PKP for the treatment of OVCF were acquired by a comprehensive search in the Cochrane Controlled Trial Register, PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, OVID. Exclusion criteria were patients with neoplastic etiology (metastasis or myeloma), infection, neural compression syndrome, invasive and degenerative disease, traumatic fracture, re-operation, neurological deficits, significant scoliosis and spinal stenosis. The main end points included: operation times, the short- and long-term postoperative Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) scores, the short-term postoperative Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), restoration rate, dosage of PMMA injected, cement leakage, X-ray exposure frequency and postoperative adjacent-level fractures.ResultsA total of 8 studies involving 428 patients were included in the meta-analysis. The mean operative time was shorter in the unilateral groups compared with the bilateral groups [P < 0.05, weighted mean difference (WMD) -19.74 (-30.56, -8.92)]. There was no significant difference in the short-term postoperative VAS scores [P > 0.05, WMD 0.03 (-0.34, 0.40)], the long-term postoperative VAS scores between them [P > 0.05, WMD 0.01 (-0.42, 0.45)] and the short-term postoperative ODI [P > 0.05, WMD -0.33 (-2.36, 1.69)] between the two groups. The unilateral approaches required significantly less dosage of PMMA than the bipedicular approaches did [P < 0.05, WMD -1.56 (-1.59, -1.16)]. The restoration rate in the bilateral groups was higher than the unilateral groups [P < 0.05, WMD -7.82 (-12.23, -3.41)]. There was no significant difference in the risk ratio of cement leakage [P > 0.05, RR 0.86 (0.36, 2.06)] and postoperative adjacent-level fractures [P > 0.05, RR 0.91 (0.25, 3.26)] between the two methods. The mean X-ray exposure frequency in the unilateral groups was greater than the bilateral groups [P < 0.05, WMD -5.69 (-10.67, -0.70)].ConclusionsA definitive verdict could not be reached regarding which approach is better for the treatment of OVCF. Although unilateral PKP was associated with shorter operative time, less X- ray exposure frequency and dosage of PMMA than bilateral PKP. There was no apparent difference in the short- and long-term clinical outcomes and complications between them. However, bilateral PKP approaches were higher than unilateral PKP in term of the restoration rate. But on account of lack of some high-quality evidence, we hold that amounts of high-quality randomized controlled trials should be required and more complications should be analysed to resolve which surgical approach is better for the treatment of OVCF in the future.

      Pubmed     Full text   Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…

Want more great medical articles?

Keep up to date with a free trial of metajournal, personalized for your practice.
1,694,794 articles already indexed!

We guarantee your privacy. Your email address will not be shared.