Clinical outcome of vertebroplasty alone versus short-segment posterior instrumentation with vertebroplasty in osteoporotic vertebral fracture: a propensity-score-matched analysis
Issued Date
2025-01-01
Resource Type
ISSN
19761902
eISSN
19767846
Scopus ID
2-s2.0-85219726585
Journal Title
Asian Spine Journal
Volume
19
Issue
1
Start Page
28
End Page
37
Rights Holder(s)
SCOPUS
Bibliographic Citation
Asian Spine Journal Vol.19 No.1 (2025) , 28-37
Suggested Citation
Santipas B., Adulkasem N., Mekariya K., Korwutthikulrangsri E., Ruangchainikom M., Sutipornplalangkul W. Clinical outcome of vertebroplasty alone versus short-segment posterior instrumentation with vertebroplasty in osteoporotic vertebral fracture: a propensity-score-matched analysis. Asian Spine Journal Vol.19 No.1 (2025) , 28-37. 37. doi:10.31616/asj.2024.0231 Retrieved from: https://repository.li.mahidol.ac.th/handle/123456789/106656
Title
Clinical outcome of vertebroplasty alone versus short-segment posterior instrumentation with vertebroplasty in osteoporotic vertebral fracture: a propensity-score-matched analysis
Author's Affiliation
Corresponding Author(s)
Other Contributor(s)
Abstract
Study Design: Retrospective cohort study with propensity-score-matched analysis. Purpose: To compare the efficacy of vertebroplasty (VP) versus short-segment posterior instrumentation (SS) with VP in patients with osteoporotic vertebral fractures (OVFs). Overview of Literature: OVFs significantly affect the aging population, causing pain, reduced mobility, and increased dependence. Treatment guidelines vary, and a consensus on the most effective approach remains unclear. To the best of our knowledge, no previous report focused on the efficacy comparison of VP alone versus SS with VP. Methods: The study included patients with OVFs undergoing VP with or without SS from 2017 to 2021. Baseline demographic and patient-reported outcome scores, including Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and European Quality-of-Life-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D), were collected preoperatively and 1 year postoperatively. Radiographic outcomes, including Cobb angle, sagittal angle reduction, and kyphotic progression, were assessed. Perioperative data were gathered. Propensity-score matching was conducted to compare both groups after adjusting for baseline characteristics. Results: This study included 60 patients. The subsequent analyses included 19 patients in both the SS+VP group and the VP groups after matching patient cohorts across various covariates. The SS+VP group demonstrated better ODI (30.38±17.12 vs. 49.68±19.43, p=0.0025) and EQ-5D scores (0.80±0.19 vs. 0.6±0.31, p=0.0018) at 1 year postoperative. Sagittal angle correction was higher in the SS+VP group (10.63°±6.34° vs. 5.74°±5.91°, p=0.0188). The SS+VP group exhibited higher blood loss and longer operative time. Perioperative complications, kyphotic progression, adjacent fractures, and reoperation rates were similar between the two groups. Conclusions: SS with VP generated superior patient-reported outcomes and sagittal angle correction for OVFs when evaluated one year postoperatively compared to VP alone. Perioperative complications, kyphotic progression, adjacent fractures, and reoperation rates were similar despite increased blood loss and extended operative time.