Therapeutic Efficacy and Safety of Percutaneous Curved Vertebroplasty in Osteoporotic Vertebral Compression Fractures: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis

Abstract

This systematic review and meta‐analysis is aimed to provide higher quality evidence regarding the efficacy and safety between PCVP and PVP/KP in OVCFs. We searched the Cochrane Library, PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase databases for all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies (cohort or case–control studies) that compare PCVP to PVP/KP for OVCFs. The Cochrane Collaboration's Risk of Bias Tool and Newcastle–Ottawa Scale (NOS) were used to evaluate the quality of the RCTs and non‐RCTs, respectively. Meta‐analysis was performed using RevMan 5.4 software. A total of seven articles consisting of 562 patients with 593 diseased vertebral bodies were included. Statistically significant differences were found in the postoperative visual analog scale (VAS) at 1 day (MD = −0.11; 95% CI: [−0.21 to −0.01], p = 0.03), but not at 3 months (MD = −0.21; 95% CI: [−0.41–0.00], p = 0.05) or 6 months (MD = 0.03; 95% CI: [−0.13–0.20], p = 0.70). There was no statistically significant difference in postoperative Oswestry disability index (ODI) at 1 day (MD = −0.28; 95% CI: [−0.62–0.05], p = 0.10), 3 months (MD = −1.52; 95% CI: [−3.11–0.07], p = 0.06), or 6 months (MD = 0.18; 95% CI: [−0.13–0.48], p = 0.25). Additionally, there were no statistically significant differences in Cobb angle (MD = 0.30; 95% CI: [−1.69–2.30], p = 0.77) or anterior vertebral body height (SMD = −0.01; 95% CI: [−0.26–0.23], p = 0.92) after surgery. Statistically significant differences were found in surgical time (MD = −8.60; 95% CI: [−13.75 to −3.45], p = 0.001), cement infusion volume (MD = −0.82; 95% CI: [−1.50 to −0.14], P = 0.02), and dose of fluoroscopy (SMD = −1.22; 95% CI: [−1.84 to −0.60], p = 0.0001) between curved and noncurved techniques, especially compared to bilateral PVP. Moreover, cement leakage showed statistically significant difference (OR = 0.40; 95% CI: [0.27–0.60], p < 0.0001). Compared with PVP/KP, PCVP is superior for pain relief at short‐term follow‐up. Additionally, PCVP has the advantages of significantly lower surgical time, radiation exposure, bone cement infusion volume, and cement leakage incidence compared to bilateral PVP, while no statistically significant difference is found when compared with unilateral PVP or PKP. In terms of quality of life and radiologic outcomes, the effects of PCVP and PVP/KP are not significantly different. Overall, this meta‐analysis reveals that PCVP was an effective and safe therapy for patients with OVCFs.