Efficacy of Vertebral Augmentation for Vertebral Compression Fractures: A Review of Meta-Analyses

INTRODUCTION: Vertebral compression fracture incidence is rising with the growth of the geriatric population and is one of the leading disabilities in healthcare. However, the literature is conflicted on the benefits of vertebral augmentation versus nonoperative care for these fractures. The purpose of the current study was to perform a review of all meta-analyses in the literature comparing vertebral augmentation to nonoperative care and descriptively report the results. METHODS: A review of all meta-analyses evaluating trials of vertebral augmentation compared with nonoperative care was performed. The primary outcome studied was pain. Secondary outcomes were quality of life (QoL) metrics and functional outcomes. RESULTS: Ten studies met the inclusion criteria. Besides two sham procedure studies, the remaining literature concluded that vertebral augmentation was superior to nonoperative care for reducing back pain. The reporting of secondary outcomes, such as QoL metrics and functional outcomes, was heterogeneous among the studies. Studies that reported these secondary outcomes, however, did identify some early benefit in vertebral augmentation. CONCLUSIONS: The current literature suggests vertebral augmentation is more effective in improving pain outcomes compared with nonoperative management. While more studies are needed to conclusively assess vertebral augmentation's efficacy in improving functional outcome and QoL, the meta-analyses surveyed here suggest that at least some benefit exists when assessing these two outcomes.