Literature DB >> 30677181

The Efficacy and Safety of Vertebral Augmentation: A Second ASBMR Task Force Report.

Peter R Ebeling1, Kristina Akesson2, Douglas C Bauer3, Rachelle Buchbinder4, Richard Eastell5, Howard A Fink6, Lora Giangregorio7, Nuria Guanabens8, Deborah Kado9, David Kallmes10, Wendy Katzman11, Alexander Rodriguez1, Robert Wermers12, H Alexander Wilson13, Mary L Bouxsein14.   

Abstract

Vertebral augmentation is among the current standards of care to reduce pain in patients with vertebral fractures (VF), yet a lack of consensus regarding efficacy and safety of percutaneous vertebroplasty and kyphoplasty raises questions on what basis clinicians should choose one therapy over another. Given the lack of consensus in the field, the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research (ASBMR) leadership charged this Task Force to address key questions on the efficacy and safety of vertebral augmentation and other nonpharmacological approaches for the treatment of pain after VF. This report details the findings and recommendations of this Task Force. For patients with acutely painful VF, percutaneous vertebroplasty provides no demonstrable clinically significant benefit over placebo. Results did not differ according to duration of pain. There is also insufficient evidence to support kyphoplasty over nonsurgical management, percutaneous vertebroplasty, vertebral body stenting, or KIVA®. There is limited evidence to determine the risk of incident VF or serious adverse effects (AE) related to either percutaneous vertebroplasty or kyphoplasty. No recommendation can be made about harms, but they cannot be excluded. For patients with painful VF, it is unclear whether spinal bracing improves physical function, disability, or quality of life. Exercise may improve mobility and may reduce pain and fear of falling but does not reduce falls or fractures in individuals with VF. General and intervention-specific research recommendations stress the need to reduce study bias and address methodological flaws in study design and data collection. This includes the need for larger sample sizes, inclusion of a placebo control, more data on serious AE, and more research on nonpharmacologic interventions. Routine use of vertebral augmentation is not supported by current evidence. When it is offered, patients should be fully informed about the evidence. Anti-osteoporotic medications reduce the risk of subsequent vertebral fractures by 40-70%.
© 2018 American Society for Bone and Mineral Research. © 2018 American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

Entities:  

Keywords:  KYPHOPLASTY; OSTEOPOROSIS; VERTEBRAL AUGMENTATION; VERTEBRAL FRACTURE; VERTEBROPLASTY

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 30677181     DOI: 10.1002/jbmr.3653

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Bone Miner Res        ISSN: 0884-0431            Impact factor:   6.741


  17 in total

1.  On Patient Safety: Differential Standards for Medical Evidence Risks Patient Safety.

Authors:  James Rickert
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2019-04       Impact factor: 4.176

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

Authors:  Roberto Luigi Cazzato; Teodora Bellone; Marco Scardapane; Pierre De Marini; Pierre-Alexis Autrusseau; Pierre Auloge; Julien Garnon; Jack W Jennings; Afshin Gangi
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2021-04-26       Impact factor: 5.315

3.  Number Needed to Treat with Vertebral Augmentation to Save a Life.

Authors:  J A Hirsch; R V Chandra; N S Carter; D Beall; M Frohbergh; K Ong
Journal:  AJNR Am J Neuroradiol       Date:  2019-12-19       Impact factor: 3.825

Review 4.  Prevention and Treatment of Glucocorticoid-Induced Osteoporosis in Adults: Consensus Recommendations From the Belgian Bone Club.

Authors:  Michaël R Laurent; Stefan Goemaere; Charlotte Verroken; Pierre Bergmann; Jean-Jacques Body; Olivier Bruyère; Etienne Cavalier; Serge Rozenberg; Bruno Lapauw; Evelien Gielen
Journal:  Front Endocrinol (Lausanne)       Date:  2022-06-09       Impact factor: 6.055

Review 5.  UK clinical guideline for the prevention and treatment of osteoporosis.

Authors:  Celia L Gregson; David J Armstrong; Jean Bowden; Cyrus Cooper; John Edwards; Neil J L Gittoes; Nicholas Harvey; John Kanis; Sarah Leyland; Rebecca Low; Eugene McCloskey; Katie Moss; Jane Parker; Zoe Paskins; Kenneth Poole; David M Reid; Mike Stone; Julia Thomson; Nic Vine; Juliet Compston
Journal:  Arch Osteoporos       Date:  2022-04-05       Impact factor: 2.879

6.  The clinician's guide to prevention and treatment of osteoporosis.

Authors:  M S LeBoff; S L Greenspan; K L Insogna; E M Lewiecki; K G Saag; A J Singer; E S Siris
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2022-04-28       Impact factor: 5.071

7.  Complications and healthcare utilization in commercially-insured osteoporotic vertebral compression fracture patients: a comparison of kyphoplasty versus propensity-matched controls.

Authors:  Laura S Gold; Michael K O'Reilly; Patrick J Heagerty; Jeffrey G Jarvik
Journal:  Spine J       Date:  2021-03-26       Impact factor: 4.297

8.  Could Teriparatide Replace Percutaneous Vertebral Augmentation for Patients with Osteoporotic Vertebral Compression Fracture to Some Extent? [Letter].

Authors:  Jiaming Zhou; Yuan Xue
Journal:  Clin Interv Aging       Date:  2019-12-02       Impact factor: 4.458

Review 9.  Vertebroplasty for osteoporotic vertebral fracture.

Authors:  Christian Roux; Bernard Cortet; Valérie Bousson; Thierry Thomas
Journal:  RMD Open       Date:  2021-06

10.  The Role of Spinal Orthoses in Osteoporotic Vertebral Fractures of the Elderly Population (Age 60 Years or Older): Systematic Review.

Authors:  Barry Ting Sheen Kweh; Hui Qing Lee; Terence Tan; Joost Rutges; Travis Marion; Kim Siong Tew; Vikram Bhalla; Shyaman Menon; Fetullah Cumhur Oner; Charles Fisher; Jin Wee Tee
Journal:  Global Spine J       Date:  2020-09-29
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.