Menu
Menu
19 Harley St, London, W1G 9QJ, UK

Surgical versus non-surgical treatment for vertebral compression fracture with osteopenia: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND: Surgical and non-surgical interventions are the two categories for treatment of vertebral compression fractures (VCFs). However, there is clinical uncertainty over optimal management. This study aimed to examine the safety and effectiveness of surgical management for treatment of VCFs with osteopenia compared with non-surgical treatment. METHODS: We conducted a systematic search through electronic databases from inception to June 2014, with no limits on study data or language. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating surgical versus non-surgical interventions for treatment of patients with VCFs due to osteopenia were considered. Primary outcomes were pain and adverse effects. A random-effects model was used to calculate the pooled mean difference (MD) or risk ratios with 95% confidence interval (CI). RESULTS: Sixteen reports (11 studies) met the inclusion criteria, and provided data for the meta-analysis with a total of 1,401 participants. Compared with conservative treatment, surgical treatment was more effective in reducing pain (short-term: MD -2.05, 95% CI -3.55 to -0.56, P=0.007; mid-term: MD -1.70, 95% CI -2.78 to -0.62, P=0.002; long-term: MD -1.24, 95% CI -2.20 to -0.29, P=0.01) and disability on the Roland-Morris Disability score (short-term: MD -4.97, 95% CI -8.71 to -1.23, P=0.009), as well as improving quality of life on the Short-Form 36 Physical Component Summary score (short-term: MD 5.53, 95% CI 1.45 to 9.61, P=0.008) and the Quality of Life Questionnaire of the European Foundation for Osteoporosis score (short-term: MD -5.01, 95% CI -8.11 to -1.91, P=0.002). Indirect comparisons between vertebroplasty and kyphoplasty found no evidence that the treatment effect differed across the two interventions for any outcomes assessed. Compared with the sham procedure, surgical treatment showed no evidence of improvement in pain relief and physical function. Based on these two comparisons, no significant difference between groups was noted in the pooled results for adverse events. CONCLUSION: Compared to conservative treatment, surgical treatment was more effective in decreasing pain in the short,mid and long terms. However, no significant mid- and long-term differences in physical function and quality of life was observed. Little good evidence is available for surgical treatment compared with that for sham procedure. PV and BK are currently used to treat VCFs with osteopenia, with little difference in treatment effects. Evidence of better quality and from a larger sample size is required before a recommendation can be made. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO PROSPERO registration number: CRD42013005142

BACKGROUND: Surgical and non-surgical interventions are the two categories for treatment of vertebral compression fractures (VCFs). However, there is clinical uncertainty over optimal management. This study aimed to examine the safety and effectiveness of surgical management for treatment of VCFs with osteopenia compared with non-surgical treatment. METHODS: We conducted a systematic search through electronic databases from inception to June 2014, with no limits on study data or language. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating surgical versus non-surgical interventions for treatment of patients with VCFs due to osteopenia were considered. Primary outcomes were pain and adverse effects. A random-effects model was used to calculate the pooled mean difference (MD) or risk ratios with 95% confidence interval (CI). RESULTS: Sixteen reports (11 studies) met the inclusion criteria, and provided data for the meta-analysis with a total of 1,401 participants. Compared with conservative treatment, surgical treatment was more effective in reducing pain (short-term: MD -2.05, 95% CI -3.55 to -0.56, P=0.007; mid-term: MD -1.70, 95% CI -2.78 to -0.62, P=0.002; long-term: MD -1.24, 95% CI -2.20 to -0.29, P=0.01) and disability on the Roland-Morris Disability score (short-term: MD -4.97, 95% CI -8.71 to -1.23, P=0.009), as well as improving quality of life on the Short-Form 36 Physical Component Summary score (short-term: MD 5.53, 95% CI 1.45 to 9.61, P=0.008) and the Quality of Life Questionnaire of the European Foundation for Osteoporosis score (short-term: MD -5.01, 95% CI -8.11 to -1.91, P=0.002). Indirect comparisons between vertebroplasty and kyphoplasty found no evidence that the treatment effect differed across the two interventions for any outcomes assessed. Compared with the sham procedure, surgical treatment showed no evidence of improvement in pain relief and physical function. Based on these two comparisons, no significant difference between groups was noted in the pooled results for adverse events. CONCLUSION: Compared to conservative treatment, surgical treatment was more effective in decreasing pain in the short,mid and long terms. However, no significant mid- and long-term differences in physical function and quality of life was observed. Little good evidence is available for surgical treatment compared with that for sham procedure. PV and BK are currently used to treat VCFs with osteopenia, with little difference in treatment effects. Evidence of better quality and from a larger sample size is required before a recommendation can be made. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO PROSPERO registration number: CRD42013005142

What our patients say ...

Consultant Spinal Surgeon
Consultant Spinal Surgeon
Consultant Spinal Surgeon
Consultant Spinal Surgeon
Consultant Spinal Surgeon
Consultant Spinal Anaesthetist

This surgical technique consists of a percutaneous approach for the treatment of small to medium size hernias of the intervertebral disc by laser energy. The main objective is to reduce the intradiscal pressure in the nucleus pulposus

Laser Disc Surgery can be performed under local anaesthetic as a day case at our centre on the prestigious Harley Street.
What is London spine unit and How it Works

The London Spine Unit was established in 2005 and has successfully treated over 5000 patients. All conditions are treated.

treatment of all spinal disorders

The London Spine Unit specialises in Minimally Invasive Treatments allowing rapid recovery and return to normal function

Trusted by patients worldwide

The London Spine Unit provides the highest quality care to all patients and has VIP services for those seeking exceptional services

Laser Spine Surgery Articles

SHADES of grey – The challenge of ‘grumbling’ cauda equina symptoms in older adults with lumbar spinal stenosis.
Abstract Diagnosing cauda equina syndrome is challenging in older adults with lumbar spinal stenosis. Understanding these challenges is vital for
Read more.
The influence of preoperative mental health on clinical outcomes after laminectomy in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis.
Abstract OBJECTIVE: The influence of preoperative mental health on health-related quality of life (HRQOL) in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis
Read more.
MicroRNA transcriptome analysis on hypertrophy of ligamentum flavum in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis.
Abstract Introduction: Molecular pathways involved in ligamentum flavum (LF) hypertrophy are still unclarified. The purpose of this study was to
Read more.
Salvage Strategy for Failed Spinal Fusion Surgery Using Lumbar Lateral Interbody Fusion technique: A Technical Note.
Abstract Introduction: Failed spinal fusion surgery sometimes requires salvage surgery when symptomatic, especially with postsurgical decrease in intervertebral disc height
Read more.
Integrated anatomy of the neuromuscular, visceral, vascular, and urinary tissues determined by MRI for a surgical approach to lateral lumbar
Abstract Introduction: To comprehensively investigate the anatomy of the neuromuscular, visceral, vascular, and urinary tissues and their general influence on
Read more.
Clinical Outcomes of Treating Cervical Adjacent Segment Disease by Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion Versus Total Disc Replacement: A Systematic
Related Articles Clinical Outcomes of Treating Cervical Adjacent Segment Disease by Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion Versus Total Disc Replacement:
Read more.

If you have any emergency Doctor’s need, simply call our 24 hour emergency

Your personal case manager will ensure that you receive the best possible care.

Call Now 

+44 844 589 2020
+44 203 973 8810