Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Z Orthop Unfall 2023; 161(06): 660-670
DOI: 10.1055/a-1785-5698
Original Article

Whether the Unilateral Transverse Process-pedicle Approach has Advantages over the Traditional Transpedicle Approach: A Systematic review and Meta-analysis

Ob der unilaterale querverlaufende Prozess-Pedikel-Ansatz Vorteile gegenüber dem traditionellen Transpedikel-Ansatz hat: Eine systematische Überprüfung und Meta-Analyse
Lingbin Wang
1   Department of orthopedics, Zhejiang Xin 'an International Hospital, Jiaxing, China
,
Linfeng Zhu
1   Department of orthopedics, Zhejiang Xin 'an International Hospital, Jiaxing, China
,
Junjie Li
2   Department of Orthopedics, Ningxia Traditional Chinese Medicine Hospital and Chinese Medicine Research Center, Yinchuan, China (Ringgold ID: RIN608515)
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Purpose To summarize the literature and compare the advantages and disadvantages of the unilateral transverse process-pedicle approach (UTPA) and conventional transpedicular approach (CTPA) vertebral augmentation in the treatment of osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures (OVCF).

Methods A single researcher performed a systematic literature review using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Online scientific databases were searched in September 2021 for English- and Chinese-language publications. A series of comparative studies were included, with UTPA as the main intervention and CTPA as the comparison indicator. A meta-analysis was performed for studies that reported clinical outcome indicators. The χ2 was used to study heterogeneity between trials, and the I2 statistic was calculated to estimate variation across studies.

Results A total of eight studies were included for meta-analysis, all of which were observational studies with mixed bias risk. There were 613 subjects in the UTPA group and 488 subjects in the CTPA group. The results of the meta-analysis showed that there was no difference between the UTPA group and the CTPA group in terms of visual analogue scale scores (p = 0.31), Oswestry Disability Index scores (p = 0.50), correction of kyphosis angle (p = 0.65), and the amount of bone cement (p = 0.13), but the UTPA group had a shorter operative time (p < 0.001), bone cement leakage rates (p = 0.02), and fluoroscopy times than the CTPA group (p < 0.001). Partial analysis results had a high risk of bias, and the most common source of bias was that there was high heterogeneity between studies, and the sensitivity can only be reduced by a random effect model, and some studies (four items) did not clearly describe the confounders that they controlled.

Conclusion The limited evidence obtained in this study proves that the new puncture method does not have more advantages than the traditional technique, so it is no longer meaningful to continue to obsess over the impact of the puncture method on surgical outcome.

Zusammenfassung

Zweck Um die Literatur zusammenzufassen und die Vor- und Nachteile der unilateralen Transversal-Prozess-Pedikel-Annäherung (UTPA) und der konventionellen transpedikulären Ansatz (CTPA)-Wirbelaugmentation bei der Behandlung von osteoporotischen vertebralen Kompressionsfrakturen (OVCF) zu vergleichen.

Methoden Ein einzelner Forscher führte eine systematische Literaturrecherche unter Verwendung der Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA)-Richtlinien durch. Wissenschaftliche Online-Datenbanken wurden im September 2021 nach englisch- und chinesischsprachigen Publikationen durchsucht. Eine Reihe von Vergleichsstudien wurde eingeschlossen, mit UTPA als Hauptintervention und CTPA als Vergleichsindikator. Für Studien, die klinische Ergebnisindikatoren berichteten, wurde eine Metaanalyse durchgeführt. χ2 wurde verwendet, um die Heterogenität zwischen den Studien zu untersuchen, und die I2-Statistik wurde berechnet, um die Variation zwischen den Studien abzuschätzen.

Ergebnisse Insgesamt wurden acht Studien in die Metaanalyse eingeschlossen, die alle Beobachtungsstudien mit gemischtem Bias-Risiko waren. 613 Probanden in der UTPA-Gruppe und 488 Probanden in der CTPA-Gruppe. Die Ergebnisse der Metaanalyse zeigten, dass es keinen Unterschied zwischen der UTPA-Gruppe und der CTPA-Gruppe in Bezug auf VAS-Werte (p = 0.31), ODI-Werte (p = 0.50), Korrektur des Kyphosewinkels (p = 0.65) und die Menge an Knochenzement (p = 0.13), aber die UTPA-Gruppe hatte weniger Operationszeit (p < 0.001), Knochenzementaustrittsraten (p = 0.02) und Durchleuchtungszeiten als die CTPA-Gruppe (p < 0.001). Teilanalyseergebnisse wiesen ein hohes Risiko für Bias auf, und die häufigste Quelle für Bias war, dass zwischen den Studien eine hohe Heterogenität bestand und die Sensitivität nur durch das Zufallseffektmodell verringert werden kann und einige Studien (vier Elemente) dies nicht klar beschreiben Confounder, die sie kontrollierten.

Schlussfolgerungen Die in dieser Studie erhaltenen begrenzten Beweise belegen, dass die neue Punktionsmethode nicht mehr Vorteile als die traditionelle Technik hat, sodass es nicht länger sinnvoll ist, sich weiterhin mit den Auswirkungen der Punktionsmethode auf das Operationsergebnis zu befassen.

Keywords

unilateral transverse process-pedicle approach - vertebral augmentation - osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures - Systematic review - meta-analysis

Schlüsselwörter

einseitiger Querfortsatz-Pedikel-Ansatz - Wirbel Augmentation - osteoporotische Wirbelkörperkompressionsfrakturen - Systematische Überprüfung - Meta-Analyse


Publication History

Received: 27 December 2021

Accepted after revision: 15 February 2022

Article published online:
04 April 2022

© 2022. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial-License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany

 

  • References

  • 1 Long Y, Yi W, Yang D. Advances in Vertebral Augmentation Systems for Osteoporotic Vertebral Compression Fractures. Pain Res Manag 2020; 2020: 3947368 DOI: 10.1155/2020/3947368. (PMID: 33376566)
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Zhu S, Su Q, Zhang Y. et al. Risk factors of cemented vertebral refracture after percutaneous vertebral augmentation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Neuroradiology 2020; 62: 1353-1360 DOI: 10.1007/s00234-020-02495-9. (PMID: 32683478)
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Cazzato RL, de Marini P, Auloge P. et al. Percutaneous vertebroplasty of the cervical spine performed via a posterior trans-pedicular approach. Eur Radiol 2021; 31: 591-598 DOI: 10.1007/s00330-020-07198-6. (PMID: 32851445)
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Liu J, Tang J, Liu H. et al. A novel and convenient method to evaluate bone cement distribution following percutaneous vertebral augmentation. Sci Rep 2020; 10: 16320 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-020-73513-2. (PMID: 33005025)
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Papadopoulos EC, Edobor-Osula F, Gardner MJ. et al. Unipedicular balloon kyphoplasty for the treatment of osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures: early results. J Spinal Disord Tech 2008; 21: 589-596 DOI: 10.1097/BSD.0b013e31815d6997. (PMID: 19057254)
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Tan B, Yang QY, Fan B. et al. Is It Necessary to Approach the Severe Osteoporotic Vertebral Biconcave-Shaped Fracture Bilaterally During the Process of PKP?. J Pain Res 2021; 14: 1601-1610 DOI: 10.2147/JPR.S293528. (PMID: 34113167)
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Yu HJ, Ma GP, Guo QF. et al. Mid and long-term clinical effects of percutaneous kyphoplasty with two methods for vertebral fragility fracture in the elderly. Zhongguo Gu Shang 2017; 30: 426-430 DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1003-0034.2017.05.007. (PMID: 29417773)
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Cheng X, Long HQ, Xu JH. et al. Comparison of unilateral versus bilateral percutaneous kyphoplasty for the treatment of patients with osteoporosis vertebral compression fracture (OVCF): a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Spine J 2016; 25: 3439-3449 DOI: 10.1007/s00586-016-4395-6. (PMID: 26814475)
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Yan L, Jiang R, He B. et al. A comparison between unilateral transverse process-pedicle and bilateral puncture techniques in percutaneous kyphoplasty. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2014; 39(26 Spec No.): B19-B26
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Engelkes M, Janssens HM, de Jongste JC. et al. Medication adherence and the risk of severe asthma exacerbations: a systematic review. Eur Respir J 2015; 45: 396-407 DOI: 10.1183/09031936.00075614. (PMID: 25323234)
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Yan L, He B, Guo H. et al. The prospective self-controlled study of unilateral transverse process-pedicle and bilateral puncture techniques in percutaneous kyphoplasty. Osteoporos Int 2016; 27: 1849-1855 DOI: 10.1007/s00198-015-3430-5. (PMID: 26608054)
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Chuan J, Jun L, Hong Z. et al. Percutaneous vertebroplasty through unilateral transverse process-pedicle approach versus bilateral transpedicular approach for treatment of severe osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures and scoliosis:a comparative study. J Trad Chin Orthop Trauma 2018; 30: 23-29
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Yupeng H. Clinical research of unilateral transverse-pedicle PKP in the treatment of severe osteoporotic vertebral compression fracture with scoliosis. J Medical Forum 2020; 41: 115-117
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Xiaoqing L, Lin Z, Xiaoqing Z. et al. Unilateral transverse process-pedicle approach percutaneous kyphoplasty in the treatment of osteoporotic vertebral compression fracture. J Clin Orthop 2020; 23: 469-473
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Tao W, Hu Q, Nicolas YSM. et al. Is unilateral transverse process-pedicle percutaneous kyphoplasty a better choice for osteoporotic thoracolumbar fractures in the old patients?. BMC Surg 2021; 21: 252 DOI: 10.1186/s12893-021-01246-8. (PMID: 34020645)
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Keqiang L, Zhongren W, Yuanjia Z. et al. Effect of unilateral transverse-pedicle vertebroplasty for severe osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures with scoliosis. Journal of Shanxi Health Vocational College 2021; 31: 28-30
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Hong P, Shuchen D, Xinhua Z. et al. Bilateral percutaneous balloon kyphoplasty through unilateral transverse process-extra pedicular approach for osteoporosis vertebral compression fractures of lumbar. Zhongguo Xiu Fu Chong Jian Wai Ke Za Zhi 2021; 35: 1007-1013
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Cheng X, Long HQ, Xu JH. et al. Comparison of unilateral versus bilateral percutaneous kyphoplasty for the treatment of patients with osteoporosis vertebral compression fracture (OVCF): a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Spine J 2016; 25: 3439-3449 DOI: 10.1007/s00586-016-4395-6. (PMID: 26814475)
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Hu P, Guo J, Wang H. et al. An anatomical study of lumbar unilateral transverse process-pedicle percutaneous vertebral augmentation. Zhongguo Xiu Fu Chong Jian Wai Ke Za Zhi 2017; 31: 1346-1353 DOI: 10.7507/1002-1892.201705089. (PMID: 29798589)
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Klazen CA, Lohle PN, de Vries J. et al. Vertebroplasty versus conservative treatment in acute osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures (Vertos II): an open-label randomised trial. Lancet 2010; 376: 1085-1092 DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(10)60954-3. (PMID: 20701962)
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Sun H, Lu PP, Liu YJ. et al. Can Unilateral Kyphoplasty Replace Bilateral Kyphoplasty in Treatment of Osteoporotic Vertebral Compression Fractures? A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Pain Physician 2016; 19: 551-563 (PMID: 27906934)
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Zhu SY, Zhong ZM, Wu Q. et al. Risk factors for bone cement leakage in percutaneous vertebroplasty: a retrospective study of four hundred and eighty five patients. Int Orthop 2016; 40: 1205-1210 DOI: 10.1007/s00264-015-3102-2. (PMID: 26753843)
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Li YY, Huang TJ, Cheng CC. et al. Comparing radiation exposure during percutaneous vertebroplasty using one- vs. two-fluoroscopic technique. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2013; 14: 38 DOI: 10.1186/1471-2474-14-38. (PMID: 23339360)
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Balter S, Hopewell JW, Miller DL. et al. Fluoroscopically guided interventional procedures: a review of radiation effects on patients’ skin and hair. Radiology 2010; 254: 326-341 DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2542082312. (PMID: 20093507)
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Liebschner MA, Rosenberg WS, Keaveny TM. Effects of bone cement volume and distribution on vertebral stiffness after vertebroplasty. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2001; 26: 1547-1554 DOI: 10.1097/00007632-200107150-00009. (PMID: 11462084)
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Chen L, Yang H, Tang T. Unilateral versus bilateral balloon kyphoplasty for multilevel osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures: a prospective study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2011; 36: 534-540 DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181f99d70. (PMID: 21242864)
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Wang H, Hu P, Xu W. et al. Unilateral percutaneous kyphoplasty for lumbar spine: A comparative study between transverse process-pedicle approach and conventional transpedicular approach. Medicine (Baltimore) 2020; 99: e19816 DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000019816. (PMID: 32332625)
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Zhang W, Liu S, Liu X. et al. Unilateral percutaneous vertebroplasty for osteoporotic lumbar compression fractures: a comparative study between transverse process root-pedicle approach and conventional transpedicular approach. J Orthop Surg Res 2021; 16: 73 DOI: 10.1186/s13018-021-02656-3. (PMID: 34389023)
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar