Objective To retrospectively compare the clinical efficacy and safety of percutaneous kyphoplasty (PKP) for the management of osteolytic and osteoblastic-related metastatic vertebral lesions.
Methods A total of 117 patients with osteolytic (87 cases, 159 lesions, OL group) or osteoblastic-related (30 cases, 56 lesions, OB group) metastatic vertebral lesions underwent PKP. The clinical efficacy was assessed based on parameters including Visual Analog Scale (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), vertebral body height (VBH) variation, and quality of life (QoL). Major and minor complications were systematically evaluated to assess the safety of the procedure.
Results No significant differences were found in the age, sex, or amount of bone cement between both groups (p>0.05). Compared with the OB group, the OL group was superior in operation duration (p<0.05) but was inferior in inflation pressure (p<0.05). Both groups experienced significant pain relief and improvement in the ODI, VBH, and QoL after PKP (p<0.05). The OB group had a better pain relief according to the VAS score but a poorer VBH restoration than the OL group throughout the follow-up period (p<0.05). No significant differences were observed in ODI and QoL between the two groups (p>0.05). The incidence of complications in the OL group was significantly higher than that in the OB group (p<0.05).
Conclusions PKP can safely achieve pain relief, functional improvement, VBH restoration, and QoL improvement for patients with osteolytic or osteoblastic-related metastatic vertebral lesions. Patients with osteolytic metastatic vertebral lesions showed better VBH restoration and had a shorter operation time but experienced less pain relief and had a greater incidence of complications than patients with osteoblastic-related metastatic vertebral lesions after PKP.
Data availability statement
Data are available upon reasonable request. Not applicable.
Statistics from Altmetric.com
WW and XZ contributed equally.
Contributors WW and XZ contributed equally to the study design. WW, XZ, and XL contributed to the data collection. WW, HL, LX, and TL contributed to the statistical analysis. WW and SY played the main role in writing the manuscript. All authors approved the manuscript.
Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
Competing interests None declared.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.