Table 1.
| Author/year of publication | Baseline characteristics | Pain relief | Disability | QoL | Kyphotic angle/VH | Cement leakage | New fractures | Conclusion |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (1) Wardlaw et al. 2009 [22], Boonen et al. 2011 [27] (FREE) RCT |
(1) BKP (149) versus NSM (151) (2) Acute number (3) 1 mo, 3 mo, 6 mo, 12 mo |
VAS score BKP superior to NSM(P < .0001) |
RM BKP superior to NSM |
SF-36
BKP superior to NSM EQ-5D BKP superior to NSM |
NR | 27%, none symptomatic |
BKP: 33% NSM: 25% P: NR |
BKP is superior to NSM in acute VCFs in terms of pain and QOL/disability. Differences between groups diminished by 1 year. |
|
| ||||||||
| (2) Liu et al. 2010 [44] RCT |
(1) BKP (50) versus VP (50) (2) Acute number (3) Postop, 6 mo |
VAS score BKP equivalent to VP |
NR | NR | BKP superior to VP (P < .001) | NR |
BKP: 2 VP: 0 |
Similar clinical results between BKP and VP. Better height restoration with BKP. |
|
| ||||||||
| (3) Rousing et al. 2009 [11], 2010 [12] RCT |
(1) VP (26) versus NSM (24) (2) Acute number (3) 3 mo, 12 mo |
VAS score VP equivalent to NSM up to 1 y (P = .3) |
NR | SF36 VP equivalent to NSM up to 1 y |
NR | NR |
VP/NSM: RR: 1.3 |
No difference between VP and NSM in 3 months and 12 months |
|
| ||||||||
| (4) Voormolen et al. 2007 (VERTOS I) [21] RCT |
(1) VP (18) versus NSM (16) (2) Acute number (3) Postop, 2 w |
VAS score VP superior to NSM 14/16 pts crossovered from NSM to VP |
RM VP superior to NSM |
QUALEFFO Mixed results in the subscores between groups |
NR | NR | NR | VP is more effective than NSM in pain relief and function in the immediate postop period (2 weeks) |
|
| ||||||||
| (5) Buchbinder et al. 2009 [4] RCT—SHAM group |
(1) VP (38) versus SHAM (40) (2) Acute number (also subacute) (3) 1 w, 1 mo, 3 mo, 6 mo |
VAS score VP equivalent to SHAM |
RM VP equivalent to SHAM |
AQoL, QUALEFFO, EQ-5D VP equivalent to SHAM |
NR | 37%, none symptomatic | VP: 3 SHAM: 4 |
No difference between VP and SHAM up to 6 months |
|
| ||||||||
| (6) Kallmes et al. 2009 (INVEST) [5] RCT—SHAM group |
(1) VP (68) versus SHAM (63) (2) Subacute number(also Acute and Chronic) (3) Postop, 2 w, 1 mo, 3 mo |
VAS score VP equivalent to SHAM Higher crossover rate in SHAM (P < .001) |
RM VP equivalent to SHAM (P > .3) |
EQ-5D, SF-36 VP equivalent to SHAM |
NR | NR | NR | No difference between VP and SHAM up to 1 month |
|
| ||||||||
| (7) Klazen et al. 2010 (VERTOS II) [19] RCT |
(1) VP (101) versus NSM (101) (2) Acute number (3) Postop, 1 w, 1 mo, 3 mo, 6 mo, 1 y |
VAS score VP superior to NSM (P < .0001) |
RM VP superior to NSM (P < .0001) |
QUALEFFO, EQ-5D VP superior to NSM (P < .0001) |
NR | 72% had asymptomatic cement leakage | VP equivalent to NSM (P = .44) | VP is more effective than NSM in acute fractures for at least 1 year. |
|
| ||||||||
| (8) Endres and Badura 2012 [38]RCT | BKP versus UNI BKP versus VP | All equivalent | All equivalent | VP more cement leak | VP procedure of choice due to less time and RT (but cement leak) | |||
|
| ||||||||
| (9) Vogl et al. 2013 [45] RCT |
KP-CD (49) versus VP (28) | equivalent | VP more cement leak | 3 in VP, 2 in KP | KP-CD reduces posterior cement leak | |||