| Background:PVP and PKP are two minimally invasive procedures for treating OVCFs, while controversy regarding the efficacy and safety about the two interventions has always been existing.Methods:Online databases were searched for studies comparing efficacy or safety of PVP and BKP for OVCFs, the randomized controlled trials (RCTs), clinical controlled trials (CCT) and cohort studies that provided related data were identified. Demographic characteristics, clinical outcomes, radiological data, and complications were extracted and analysed from all of the included studies.Results:19 studies encompassing 1582 patients in total, of whom 820 received PVP and 762 received BKP, met the inclusion criteria. Pain scoring detected no significant difference between the two procedures except the RCT subgroup, both for short-and long-term. PVP spared less operative time than BKP. BKP was more effective to restore vertebral height and correct kyphotic deformity. There was no significant difference between the two interventions if considering cement leakage into disc spaces only, while considering total cement leakage and cement leakage into paravertebral, the cement leakage rate in the BKP group was significantly less than the PVP group.Conclusions:PVP and BKP can equivalently relieve clinical symptoms. PVP require less operative time than BKP, thus, patients can not torlerate a long time operation are better candidates for PVP. While BKP has a superiority of restorating vertebral height, correcting kyphotic deformity and decreasing the cement leakage rate, therefore, for those patients with severe height loss, high kyphosis angle, BKP seems to be a safer choice. PVP’s higher cement leakage rate may mainly caused by the cement leakage into paravertebral rather than disc. |
