STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. OBJECTIVE: Percutaneous vertebroplasty (PVP) and percutaneous kyphoplasty (PKP) are minimally invasive techniques widely used for the treatment of neurologically intact osteoporotic Kümmell's disease (KD), but which treatment is preferable remains controversial. Therefore, this study aimed to shed light on this issue. METHODS: Six databases were searched for all relevant studies based on the PRISMA guidelines. Two investigators independently conducted a quality assessment, extracted the data and performed all statistical analyses. RESULTS: Eight studies encompassing 438 neurologically intact osteoporotic KD patients met the inclusion criteria. Compared to PVP, PKP was associated with greater improvement in the short- and long-term Cobb angle [SMD = -0.37, P = 0.007; SMD = -0.34, P = 0.012], short-term anterior vertebral height [SMD = 0.43, P = 0.003] and long-term middle vertebral height [SMD = 0.57, P = 0.012] and a lower cement leakage rate [SMD = 0.50, P = 0.003] but produced more consumption (cement injection volume, operative time, fluoroscopy times, intraoperative blood loss and operation cost). However, there were no differences between the 2 procedures in the short- and long-term VAS and ODI scores, long-term anterior vertebral height, overall complications or new vertebral fractures. CONCLUSIONS: Both procedures are equally effective for neurologically intact KD in terms of the clinical outcomes, with the exception of a lower cement leakage risk and better radiographic improvement for PKP but greater resource consumption. Based on the evidence available, good clinical judgment should be exercised in the selection of patients for these procedures.
STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. OBJECTIVE: Percutaneous vertebroplasty (PVP) and percutaneous kyphoplasty (PKP) are minimally invasive techniques widely used for the treatment of neurologically intact osteoporotic Kümmell's disease (KD), but which treatment is preferable remains controversial. Therefore, this study aimed to shed light on this issue. METHODS: Six databases were searched for all relevant studies based on the PRISMA guidelines. Two investigators independently conducted a quality assessment, extracted the data and performed all statistical analyses. RESULTS: Eight studies encompassing 438 neurologically intact osteoporotic KD patients met the inclusion criteria. Compared to PVP, PKP was associated with greater improvement in the short- and long-term Cobb angle [SMD = -0.37, P = 0.007; SMD = -0.34, P = 0.012], short-term anterior vertebral height [SMD = 0.43, P = 0.003] and long-term middle vertebral height [SMD = 0.57, P = 0.012] and a lower cement leakage rate [SMD = 0.50, P = 0.003] but produced more consumption (cement injection volume, operative time, fluoroscopy times, intraoperative blood loss and operation cost). However, there were no differences between the 2 procedures in the short- and long-term VAS and ODI scores, long-term anterior vertebral height, overall complications or new vertebral fractures. CONCLUSIONS: Both procedures are equally effective for neurologically intact KD in terms of the clinical outcomes, with the exception of a lower cement leakage risk and better radiographic improvement for PKP but greater resource consumption. Based on the evidence available, good clinical judgment should be exercised in the selection of patients for these procedures.
Kümmell’s disease (KD) is defined as delayed posttraumatic vertebral collapse
secondary to pathological vertebral compression fractures and is characterized by
vertebral microtrauma with an asymptomatic period, followed by aggravated pain
recurrence and progressive kyphosis deformity months or years later, which
predominantly affects older individuals with osteoporosis.[1-3] The lesions are usually located
in the thoracolumbar region and affect a single-level vertebra in the majority of
cases.[4,5] KD has rarely
been reported in previous studies and can easily be misdiagnosed as a pathological
fracture. With advanced imaging technology and additional medical knowledge, more KD
cases are being detected, and the prevalence of KD ranges from 7% to 37% among
people with osteoporotic vertebral fractures.
Currently, KD is diagnosed mainly on the basis of a combination of clinical
symptoms and imaging characteristics. The intravertebral vacuum cleft phenomenon on
plain radiography has been deemed a representative imaging sign of vertebral
avascular osteonecrosis, the most widely accepted pathophysiology of KD.[7,8] In addition, intravertebral
gas-like, fluid-like, or mixed signals detected by MRI scans can be used to predict
osteonecrosis derived from vertebral microfractures, with high sensitivity (86%) and
specificity (100%).
Even so, the definite pathogenesis, natural history and diagnostic criteria
of KD remain controversial.Due to the rarity and complexity of KD, no consensus has been reached regarding a
management protocol or a single definitive treatment for KD.
Considering that the affected vertebra develops insidiously and fails to heal
spontaneously, traditional conservative treatments (e.g., analgesics and bed rest)
are usually ineffective and may even contribute to delayed neurological
damage.[11,12] In terms of surgical treatments, different procedures have been
adopted according to the development phase of KD. For patients with neurological
deficits, open surgeries (anterior, posterior, or combined anterior and posterior
approaches) are routinely recommended to decompress the spinal canal, restore spinal
alignment and conserve spinal stability.[13,14] For neurologically intact KD,
minimally invasive techniques are feasible choices and have the advantages of fast
deformity correction, pain relief and functional recovery.
Percutaneous kyphoplasty (PKP) and percutaneous vertebroplasty (PVP) have
been widely accepted by surgeons and patients and possess several advantages over
open surgeries, including smaller wounds, lower costs, earlier mobilization and
faster rehabilitation.Generally, it is believed that PVP is more economical than PKP because there are no
additional consumables, such as balloons.[17,18] The evidence available has
confirmed that PVP is a safe and effective surgical procedure for KD.[1,5,19] PKP is more conducive to
restoring vertebral height and correcting kyphosis and is considered a better choice
for patients with significant vertebral height loss (HL) and old fractures with
pseudarthrosis.[20-22] However,
because bone cement is injected into the compressed vertebral body under a large
pressure, PKP and PVP may cause associated complications, with bone cement leakage
being the most common complication.[16,23] It is generally acknowledged
that the incidence of cement leakage in PKP is lower than that in PVP when OVCFs are
treated.[17,24-28] A previous systematic review
of 69 clinical studies demonstrated that the cement leakage rate was 9% in PKP and
41% in PVP.
Subsequently, Zhan et al
conducted a meta-analysis with 2872 OVCF patients (4187 vertebrae) and
reached a similar conclusion: the incidence rates of cement leakage for PVP and PKP
were 18.4% and 54.7%, respectively. Moreover, cement leakage in PKP and PVP was
observed in 13.6% and 37.9% of patients with cancer-related vertebral compression fractures.
Currently, an increasing number of studies have specifically reported the
leakage rates of PVP and PKP for the treatment of KD. However, these studies were
limited by a small sample size such that some of the results were conflicting rather
than conclusive. For instance, Kong et al
concluded that the cement leakage rate in the PVP group (66.7%) was
significantly higher than that in the PKP group (20.7%), whereas Chang et al
found that there were no significant differences between the 2 procedures
(10.7% vs. 17.9%, P > 0.05). Bone cement leakage can not only lead to severe
neurological complications such as paraplegia and root compression through the
spinal canal or the intervertebral foramina
but also cause pulmonary or intracardiac embolism and even death through the
pulmonary artery.[33,34] Therefore, it is of vital importance to determine which method
has the highest effectiveness and leads to the fewest complications for
neurologically intact KD.Reportedly, both procedures have been proposed for the treatment of KD without
neurologic impairment and have demonstrated high clinical satisfaction, but
high-quality studies directly comparing PVP and PKP in terms of clinical efficacy
and safety are so scant that the preferable choice for neurologically intact KD
remains controversial. To the best of our knowledge, there are no meta-analyses that
have provided reliable evidence on this issue. Therefore, we collected the best
available evidence and performed a meta-analysis to systematically evaluate the
clinical outcomes, imaging improvements, perioperative complications and
intraoperative resource consumption associated with PVP and PKP for the treatment of
neurologically intact osteoporotic KD, which provided evidence-based guidance for
clinical practice.
Materials and Methods
Search Strategy
The meta-analysis was performed in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items
for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.
PubMed, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, Web of Science, CNKI and Wanfang Data
was searched for relevant studies without language restrictions from their
inception dates to September 1, 2020. The following search terms were used in
all searches: (i) kummell [Title/Abstract]) OR avascular osteonecrosis of
vertebral body [Title/Abstract]) OR vertebral osteonecrosis [Title/Abstract]) OR
vertebral pseudarthrosis [Title/Abstract]) OR intravertebral vacuum cleft
[Title/Abstract]) OR delayed vertebral collapse [Title/Abstract]); AND (ii)
kyphoplasty [Title/Abstract]) OR vertebroplasty [Title/Abstract] OR PVP
[Title/Abstract]) OR PKP [Title/Abstract]). Moreover, the reference lists of
eligible studies were searched for additional papers that had not been
identified by the primary search strategy. All titles, abstracts, and full texts
were screened independently by 2 reviewers. Disagreements were resolved by
arriving at a consensus through comparing notes.
Inclusion Criteria
The inclusion criteria were as follows: (1) the study population included adult
patients definitively diagnosed with stage I and II Kümmell’s disease; (2) the
interventions included PVP and PKP; (3) at least one of the following outcome
indicators were included: functional evaluation (Oswestry Disability Index
(ODI), visual analog scale (VAS) score), imaging evaluation (Cobb angle,
anterior vertebral height, middle vertebral height), complications (bone cement
leakage, new vertebral fracture) and consumption (injection volume of bone
cement, fluoroscopy times, intraoperative blood loss, operation time); and (4)
the study design was a randomized controlled trial (RCT) or comparative
observational study.
Exclusion Criteria
The exclusion criteria were as follows: (1) single-armed follow-up studies; (2)
reviews, case reports, letters and comments; (3) studies that used cadaveric
specimens or animal models; and (4) studies presenting incomplete or
inappropriate data. If duplicate data or data from the same population was used
in more than one study, the most recent or complete study was included in the
analysis.
Quality Assessment
The Cochrane risk of bias tool was used to evaluate the methodological quality of
the RCTs in terms of selection bias, performance bias, detection bias, attrition
bias, reporting bias and other bias. The study was classified as having a high,
an unclear, or a low risk of bias for each domain. The Newcastle-Ottawa Quality
Assessment Scale (NOQAS) was used to assess the methodological quality of
nonrandomized comparative studies with 3 main items and a total score of 9
points: selection (0–4 points), comparability (0–2 points), and the measurement
of exposure factors (0–3 points). Studies with more than 6 points were
considered high quality. The quality assessment was conducted independently by 2
reviewers. Any disagreements were resolved by reaching a consensus.
Data Abstraction
Data from all included studies was extracted and put into a standard form
independently by 2 investigators, and disagreements were resolved by discussion.
The following essential information was abstracted: (1) study characteristics,
including the author, publication year, country, and study design; (2) patients’
demographic and clinical information, including the population source, age, sex,
surgical procedures, number of participants, and mean follow-up duration; and
(3) outcome indicators, including the ODI and VAS scores, Cobb angle, anterior
and middle vertebral height, and bone cement leakage. In addition to routine
measurement, the anterior and middle vertebral body heights were measured and
expressed as Ha (%) and Hm (%); A and M were divided by the mean value of the
corresponding cortical heights of the 2 nearest nonfractured vertebrae,
respectively (Figure
1).
Figure 1.
Measurement of the vertebral heights of the anterior and middle vertebral
bodies. A (measured vertebral height of the anterior column), M
(measured vertebral height of the middle column), estimated vertebral
height of the anterior column = (A1+A2)/2, estimated vertebral height of
the middle column = (M1+M2)/2), Ha(%) = A/estimated vertebral height of
the anterior column, Hm(%) = M/estimated vertebral height of the middle
column.
Measurement of the vertebral heights of the anterior and middle vertebral
bodies. A (measured vertebral height of the anterior column), M
(measured vertebral height of the middle column), estimated vertebral
height of the anterior column = (A1+A2)/2, estimated vertebral height of
the middle column = (M1+M2)/2), Ha(%) = A/estimated vertebral height of
the anterior column, Hm(%) = M/estimated vertebral height of the middle
column.
Statistical Analysis
All meta-analyses were conducted by Stata software 14.0. For the continuous
outcomes such as the ODI and VAS scores, the mean difference (MD) or standard
mean difference (SMD) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were used for estimates.
For dichotomous outcomes such as the rate of complications, odds ratios (ORs)
and 95% CIs were calculated. Statistical significance was identified by p values
< 0.05. The level of statistical heterogeneity was assessed by the I-square
test. I-square values of 25%, 50%, and 75% indicated low, moderate, and high
heterogeneity, respectively. When I
< 50%, a fixed-effect model was applied, and when I
> 50%, a random-effect model was applied. If significant heterogeneity
existed, subgroup analysis and sensitivity analysis was used to find the source
of heterogeneity. All quantitative analysis results were demonstrated using
forest plots. Publication bias was statistically assessed using the visual
inspection of the funnel plot.
Results
Included Studies
A total of 1072 papers were preliminarily retrieved from searches of the various
electronic databases. First, 524 articles remained after the duplicates were
removed with Endnote software. Then, we read the titles and abstracts and
rejected 505 irrelevant studies. Based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria,
19 studies were excluded after the full texts were read. Finally, 8 eligible
articles[30,31,36-41] were included in this
meta-analysis. The flow chart of the literature search process is shown in Figure 2.
Figure 2.
Flow diagram of the study identification and selection process.
Flow diagram of the study identification and selection process.
Study Characteristics
The included studies involved a total of 438 KD patients, 195 of whom were
treated with PKP and 243 of whom were treated with PVP. All studies were
nonrandomized observational studies, and there were 2 prospective and 5
retrospective case-control studies. Four studies[30,31,37,40] were in English,
three[38,39,41] were in Chinese, and one
was in Korean. The publication years of these studies ranged from 2008 to
2020. The basic characteristics of the patients in the included studies, such as
age and sex, were comparable. The minimum duration of follow-up across all
studies was 12 months. The study features and patients’ demographic and clinical
data are listed in Table
1. According to the NOQAS for nonrandomized studies, 2
studies[31,40] scored 9 points, and 6 studies[30, 36–39, 41] scored 8 points (Table 2). Therefore,
methodologically, all included studies were considered of high quality.
Table 1.
The Demographic Characteristics of the Included Studies.
Methodologic Quality Assessment of the Included Studies.
Study
Selection (score)
Comparability (score)
Outcome (score)
Total score
Representativeness of the exposed cohort
Selection of the nonexposed cohort
Ascertainment of exposure
Outcome of interest was not present at start of study
Based on the design or analysis
Assessment of outcome
Follow-up long enough for outcomes to occur
Adequacy of follow-up of cohorts
Lee et al, 2008
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
8
Kong et al, 2013
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
8
Zhang et al, 2015
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
8
Yu et al, 2016
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
8
Gao et al, 2016
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
8
Zhang et al, 2018
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
9
Jiang et al, 2019
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
8
Chang et al, 2020
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
9
The Demographic Characteristics of the Included Studies.RCS retrospective cohort studies, RPS prospective cohort study, PVP
percutaneous vertebroplasty, PKP percutaneous kyphoplasty, No.
numbers, M/F male/female, NA not available.Methodologic Quality Assessment of the Included Studies.
Meta-Analysis
Clinical Outcomes (ODI and VAS Scores)
The clinical outcomes, including the ODI and VAS scores, at different time points
(before the operation, after the operation and at the final follow-up), were
combined. All studies provided the VAS scores for the 195 patients undergoing
PKP and 243 patients undergoing PVP. There were no differences between the PKP
group and PVP group in the preoperative [SMD = −0.14, 95% CI (−0.33, 0.05), P =
0.158], postoperative [SMD = 0.03, 95% CI (−0.16, 0.22), P = 0.779] or last
follow-up VAS score [SMD = −0.06, 95% CI (−0.25, 0.13), P = 0.531], which showed
low heterogeneity (I
< 50%) (Figure
3).
Figure 3.
Forest plot of 2 studies estimating the short-term and long-term VAS
scores.
Forest plot of 2 studies estimating the short-term and long-term VAS
scores.A total of 6 studies including 149 patients in the PKP group and 187 patients in
the PVP group reported the ODI score. Pooled analysis with low heterogeneity (I
< 50%) showed no significant differences between the 2 groups in the
preoperative [SMD = −0.10, 95% CI (−0.32, 0.12), P = 0.358], postoperative [SMD
= −0.20, 95% CI (−0.43, 0.04), P = 0.099] or last follow-up ODI score [SMD =
−0.14, 95% CI (−0.36, 0.08), P = 0.208] (Figure 4).
Figure 4.
Forest plot of 2 studies estimating the short-term and long-term ODI
scores.
Forest plot of 2 studies estimating the short-term and long-term ODI
scores.
Radiographic Outcomes (Cobb Angle and Anterior Vertebral Height)
The radiographic outcomes included the Cobb angle and vertebral body height
(anterior vertebral height, Ha and Hm). Five studies with 98 patients undergoing
PKP and 140 undergoing PVP reported the Cobb angle. A fixed-effect model was
applied due to the low heterogeneity (I
< 50%). There were no differences between the 2 groups in the Cobb
angle before the operation, but the Cobb angle after the operation [SMD = −0.37,
95% CI (−0.64, −0.10), P = 0.007] and at the final follow-up [SMD = −0.34, 95%
CI (−0.61, −0.07), P = 0.012] in the PKP group were significantly lower than
those in the PVP group, which demonstrated that PKP corrects kyphosis
deformities to a greater extent in the short term and long term (Figure 5).
Figure 5.
Forest plot of 2 studies estimating the short-term and long-term Cobb
angles.
Forest plot of 2 studies estimating the short-term and long-term Cobb
angles.Vertebral height was measured using anterior vertebral height by 3 studies with
94 patients undergoing PKP and 103 undergoing PVP; Ha (%) and Hm (%) were
measured by 2 studies with 41 patients undergoing PKP and 43 undergoing PVP.
There were no differences between 2 groups in anterior vertebral height before
the operation [SMD = −0.27, 95% CI (−0.55, 0.01), P = 0.063] or at the final
follow-up [SMD = 0.22, 95% CI (−0.27, 0.71), P = 0.376]; in Ha (%) before the
operation [SMD = −0.08, 95% CI (−0.51, 0.36), P = 0.729], after the operation
[SMD = 0.28, 95% CI (−0.27, 0.84), P = 0.320] or at the final follow-up [SMD =
0.25, 95% CI (−0.47, 0.97), P = 0.498]; or in Hm(%) before the operation [SMD =
−0.10, 95% CI (−0.33, 0.53), P = 0.648] or after the operation [SMD = 0.47, 95%
CI (−0.12, 1.05), P = 0.120]. However, the short-term anterior vertebral height
and long-term middle vertebral height of the PKP group were slightly larger than
those of the PVP group, with a statistically significant difference [SMD = 0.43,
95% CI (0.14, 0.71), P = 0.003; SMD = 0.57, 95% CI (0.12, 1.01), P = 0.012]
(Figure 6).
Figure 6.
Forest plot of 2 studies estimating the short-term and long-term
vertebral heights.
Forest plot of 2 studies estimating the short-term and long-term
vertebral heights.
Perioperative Complications (Overall Complications, Bone Cement Leakage and
New Vertebral Fracture)
The complication outcomes, including bone cement leakage, new vertebral fracture
and overall complications, in different studies were compared. All studies
reported information about cement leakage for the PVP and PKP procedures. The
combined results showed that PKP was associated with a lower cement leakage rate
than was PVP [SMD = 0.50, 95% CI (0.31, 0.81), P = 0.003]. Seven studies with
184 patients undergoing PKP and 225 undergoing PVP reported the rate of new
vertebral fractures. The meta-analysis indicated that the rate of new vertebral
fractures was similar between the 2 groups [SMD = 0.79, 95% CI (0.36, 1.73), P =
0.560]. In addition, the total complication rate was compared by 7 studies, and
no significant differences were observed between the 2 groups [SMD = 0.63, 95%
CI (0.39, 1.00), P = 0.051]. Fixed-effect models were used in all above analyses
because there was no heterogeneity (I
= 0). All the results are shown in Figure 7.
Figure 7.
Forest plot of 2 studies estimating bone cement leakage, new vertebral
fractures and overall complications.
Forest plot of 2 studies estimating bone cement leakage, new vertebral
fractures and overall complications.
Intraoperative Resource Consumption (Cement Injection Volume, Operation Time,
Fluoroscopy Times, Operation Cost and Blood Loss)
Six studies compared the volume of cement injected, 5 studies reported the
operation time, 2 studies reported the number of fluoroscopy times, and 2
studies reported the operation costs. Separate meta-analyses demonstrated PVP
was associated with a smaller volume of cement injected [SMD = 0.50, 95% CI
(0.27, 0.73), P < 0.001], a shorter operation time [SMD = 1.80, 95% CI (1.40,
1.94), P < 0.001], fewer fluoroscopy times [SMD = 1.02, 95% CI (0.62, 1.43),
P < 0.001] and lower operation costs [SMD = 18.20, 95% CI (15.52, 20.87), P =
0.040] than was PKP, with significant differences. Although only one study
reported intraoperative blood loss, we found that the volume of blood loss in
the PVP group was also significantly smaller than that in the PKP group [SMD =
0.96, 95% CI (0.41, 1.51), P = 0.001]. A random-effect model was employed in the
analysis of cement injection volume, operation time and operation cost (I
> 50%) but not for fluoroscopy times. All the above results are shown
in Figure 8.
Figure 8.
Forest plot of 2 studies estimating the cement injection volume,
operative time, fluoroscopy times, intraoperative blood loss and
operation cost.
Forest plot of 2 studies estimating the cement injection volume,
operative time, fluoroscopy times, intraoperative blood loss and
operation cost.
Publication Bias
To detect possible publication bias, a funnel plot for the most commonly reported
outcome (cement leakage rate) was generated. The plot showed an adequate
symmetrical distribution of points close to the no-effect line. Moreover, none
of the studies were located outside of the acceptability range, thus
demonstrating satisfactory results. Therefore, the risk of publication bias for
this study was low (Figure
9).
Figure 9.
A funnel plot of the cement leakage rate.
A funnel plot of the cement leakage rate.
Discussion
To the best of our knowledge, this was the first comprehensive meta-analysis aimed at
comparing the clinical safety and efficacy of PVP with those of PKP for the
treatment of neurologically intact osteoporotic KD. The meta-analysis results
revealed that PKP led to better kyphotic deformity correction and a lower cement
leakage rate in the treatment of neurologically intact KD, while PVP produced less
resource consumption (cement injection volume, operative time, fluoroscopy times,
etc.). However, there were no differences between the 2 procedures in clinical
outcomes (VAS and ODI), the rate of new vertebral fractures, total complications or
most of the vertebral height measurements, with the exception of short-term anterior
vertebral height and long-term middle vertebral height.Clinically, KD is an uncommon and complicated spinal condition associated with
progressive and aggravated symptoms with delayed onset, and KD is mainly caused by
osteoporosis but is different from typical osteoporotic vertebral
fractures.[4,42] The pathomechanism, clinical characteristics, imaging
manifestations and therapeutic strategies of KD remain inconclusive despite the
recent increase in medical awareness and advancements in imaging technology.
Currently, avascular osteonecrosis of the vertebral body is widely accepted as a
hypothetical pathophysiology, and the intravertebral vacuum cleft, an imaging sign
of avascular osteonecrosis, has been highly suggestive of KD.[7,42] The treatment of KD is
individualized according to the severity of symptoms and the stage of the disease.
KD can be divided into 3 phases on the basis of its severity: a less than 20%
reduction in vertebral body height without adjacent disc degeneration (stage I), a
more than 20% reduction in vertebral body height with adjacent disc degeneration
(stage II) and a rupture of the vertebral posterior wall with spinal cord
compression (stage III).
Generally, patients with symptomatic KD are refractory to conservative
treatment because vertebral lesions fail to heal spontaneously.
Surgical intervention is the only effective option to alleviate severe pain
and prevent further collapse. Admittedly, minimally invasive surgery (PVP or PKP) is
often used for patients with neurologically intact KD in stages I and II, while open
surgery is recommended as routine management for those in stage III.[15,16]To date, increasing clinical studies and meta-analyses have been conducted, and the
studies have demonstrated that PKP and PVP are safe and effective methods for
pathological vertebral compression fractures and can alleviate pain and improve most
patients’ functional status and quality of life.[18,27,29,44,45] Furthermore, a recent
meta-analysis of more than 2 million patients indicated that the mortality of OVCF
patients undergoing vertebral augmentation (PKP or PVP) was 22% less than that of
patients undergoing nonsurgical management within 10 years after treatment.
In view of these advantages, PVP or PKP has been used to treat neurologically
intact KD increasingly more often, and several single-arm studies have shown that
both procedures can effectively relieve intractable pain and maintain sagittal
balance.[1,19,21,22] Subsequently, few comparative studies have directly compared
the safety and effectiveness of PVP with those of PKP in treating KD. A
retrospective study by Zhang
reported that PVP provided comparable pain relief and vertebral height
restoration, while PKP was associated with fewer cement leakages. Chang et al
prospectively investigated 56 KD patients treated with either PVP or PKP and
found that both techniques could achieve similar effects in the treatment of KD, but
PVP required less resources, such as less money, a shorter operation time, less
blood loss and less radiation exposure. In addition, Yu et al
considered that surgical decision-making for PVP or PKP should rely on the
clinical stages and status of postural correction of KD patients. Thus, whether one
technique is superior in treating KD remains inconclusive, and the current findings
are unconvincing due to the limited sample size. Therefore, we conducted a
meta-analysis to comprehensively compare the advantages and disadvantages of PVP and
PKP for neurologically intact osteoporotic KD.Regarding clinical outcomes, there were no statistically significant differences in
the short-term and long-term VAS and ODI scores between the 2 groups, which was
consistent with previous results.[31,37,39-41] From a radiological
perspective, we found that PKP provided better short-term and long-term kyphosis
correction than did PVP. In addition, there were no differences in most of the
vertebral height measurements, with the exception of greater restoration of
short-term anterior vertebral height and long-term middle vertebral height for the
PKP group. As reported by Kong et al, although both PVP and PKP could restore the
vertebral body height, reduce the kyphotic angle and could reduce vertebral
fractures with clefts with lasting effects, PKP showed a better result in the
magnitude of local correction than did PVP. However, another study by Kim et al
measured the vertebral HL and segmental kyphotic angle at preoperative,
postoperative, and 1-, 3-, 6-, and 12-month postoperative time points and found that
PKP yields less HL (PKP 20.5% ± 5.6% vs. PVP 29.8% ± 4.6%, P < 0.001) in the
earlier stage. However, no significant differences in vertebral height were observed
at the 1-year follow-up (PKP 29.8% ± 6.3% vs. PVP 33.0% ± 5.2%, P = 0.075), which
revealed that the PKP group had greater progressive vertebral HL. It was likely that
the bone-cement interface induced by a balloon tamponade in PKP contributed to the
differences. Regrettably, this meta-analysis actually included 5 studies with
nonrandomized data on vertebral height, and only 2 studies reported Ha (%) and Hm
(%); thus, the conclusion regarding vertebral height needs to be interpreted with
caution and further confirmed by more reliable data from RCTs. Moreover, previous
studies[30,49,50] have indicated that the magnitude of deformity correction and
vertebral height restoration might not affect the clinical outcomes after PKP or
PVP, so the radiological findings included in the current study can be regarded as
secondary outcomes of this study.Regarding the safety of the 2 procedures for KD, a consensus has not been reached in
previous studies, especially regarding the risk of cement leakage. On the one hand,
Zhang et al
found that the rate of cement leakage in the PKP group (8.6%) was
significantly lower than that in the PVP group (26.3%), and Kong et al
reached a similar conclusion (PKP group 20.7% vs. PVP group 66.7%). On the
other hand, Jiang
and Chang et al
showed no differences in the rate of cement leakage between the 2 groups (P
> 0.05). This divergence in the cement leakage rate might be the result of a
limited number of KD patients being included. This pooled analysis of sufficient
data revealed that PVP was associated with a higher risk of cement leakage than was
PKP without heterogeneity, which could explain the inconsistency in the arguments in
previous studies. In addition, we further demonstrated that there were no
significant differences in the rate of new vertebral fractures between the 2
procedures, and homologous results were found in previous studies.[30,31,37,38,41] Recently, a
meta-analysis revealed that clinical or radiological subsequent fractures on
unoperated levels were not associated with PKP or PVP, which might explain our results.
As expected, more resource consumption was observed in the PKP group for
factors including bone cement injection volume, fluoroscopy times, intraoperative
blood loss and operation cost. In view of no striking differences in long-term
efficacy between PKP and PVP, these indicators should also be considered
indispensable in evaluations, especially for the majority of patients.Undeniably, statistical heterogeneity could have partly influenced the consistency of
the results in this meta-analysis since several confounding factors (e.g., study
design, population source, operative skills and follow-up period) varied among
studies. Significant heterogeneity occurred in AH and Ha (%) at the final follow-up,
bone cement injection volume, operative time and cost. Although fixed- or
random-effects models were utilized to reduce heterogeneity, sensitivity analysis
and subgroup analysis could not be conducted to identify the origin of heterogeneity
because of the limited number of studies or insufficient data. In addition, only one
study by Chang reported information about intraoperative blood loss for the 2
procedures.The limitations of this meta-analysis were as follows. First, all included studies
were observational cohort studies, whose qualities were hampered by the lack of
randomization, blinding and other relevant methodological procedures, resulting in
selection bias, reporting bias, and performance bias. Second, the evaluation
criteria for the height of the injured vertebra and other consumption indicators
varied among studies, thereby impeding the combination of more homologous data and
increasing the risk of heterogeneity. Third, some uncontrollable factors might
influence the consistency of the conclusions, such as inter-individual variation in
the population and differences in the surgical technologies used, doctors’ operative
proficiency, and location of the responsible vertebra. Finally, it is possible that
some relevant studies may not have been identified. However, we conducted a
comprehensive literature search in available electronic databases and manually
retrieved lists of references from the eligible studies; therefore, we tried our
best to minimize the risk of studies being missed.
Conclusions
This meta-analysis demonstrated that percutaneous kyphoplasty and vertebroplasty
showed similar clinical outcomes, including short-term and long-term VAS and ODI
scores, the rate of new vertebral fractures and overall complications, in the
treatment of neurologically intact osteoporotic Kümmell’s disease. PKP contributed
to relatively greater radiographic improvement and a lower risk of cement leakage
but greater resource consumption than did PVP. Based on the available evidence, good
clinical judgment should be exercised in the selection of patients for these
procedures. Of course, these conclusions should be confirmed by more high-quality
and large-sample RCTs in the future.
Authors: Priyan R Landham; Holly L A Baker-Rand; Samuel J Gilbert; Phillip Pollintine; Deborah J Annesley-Williams; Michael A Adams; Patricia Dolan Journal: Spine J Date: 2014-11-28 Impact factor: 4.166