Dataset Information

Effects of teriparatide and bisphosphonate on spinal fusion procedure: A systematic review and network meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Giving patients anti-osteoporotic agents peri-operatively is a well-accepted strategy to increase fusion rate and prevent complications. The purpose of this study was to investigate effectiveness of teriparatide and bisphosphonate on fusion surgery of thoracic and lumbar spine. METHODS:We searched EMBASE and PubMed for randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and prospective comparative studies using teriparatide or bisphosphonate in peri-operative spinal fusion surgery. Our synthesized data of fusion rate, Oswestry disability index (ODI), and adverse event in contrast-based network meta-analysis. Pooled results were presented in risk ratio (RR) or mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence interval (CI). RESULTS:Our search hit eight RCTs and three prospective studies with 676 patients receiving spinal surgery. Pooled result showed that teriparatide+Denosumab leads to significantly higher fusion rate than placebo (RR, 2.84; 95% CI: 1.22 to 6.60) and bisphosphonate (RR, 2.59; 95% CI: 1.13 to 5.96). We did not observe significant finding among placebo, teriparatide, and bisphosphonate in the two network models. CONCLUSION:This is the first network meta-analysis providing an overview of the use of teriparatide and bisphosphonate for spinal fusion surgery. Teriparatide treatments are worth to be consider for spinal fusion surgery.

SUBMITTER: Cheng SH

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7462270 | biostudies-literature | 2020

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Effects of teriparatide and bisphosphonate on spinal fusion procedure: A systematic review and network meta-analysis.

Cheng Shih-Hao SH Kuo Yi-Jie YJ Chen Chiehfeng C Kang Yi-No YN

PloS one 20200901 9

<h4>Background</h4>Giving patients anti-osteoporotic agents peri-operatively is a well-accepted strategy to increase fusion rate and prevent complications. The purpose of this study was to investigate effectiveness of teriparatide and bisphosphonate on fusion surgery of thoracic and lumbar spine.<h4>Methods</h4>We searched EMBASE and PubMed for randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and prospective comparative studies using teriparatide or bisphosphonate in peri-operative spinal fusion surgery. Our s ...[more]

PMID: 32870946

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Mineral bone disease constitutes a common complication of post-kidney transplantation, leading to great disability. As there is no consensus on the optimal treatment for post-kidney transplant recipients (KTRs), we aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of bisphosphonate and its combined therapies. METHODS:We incorporated relevant trials to perform a network meta-analysis from direct and indirect comparisons. We searched PubMed, Embase and the CENTRAL and the reference lists of relevant articles up to August 1, 2017, for randomized controlled trials. The primary outcome was bone mineral density (BMD) change at the femoral neck and the lumbar spine. RESULTS:From a total of 864 citations, 18 randomized controlled trials with a total of 1200 participants were included. Five different regimens were considered. Bisphosphonate plus calcium revealed a significant gain in percent BMD change than calcium alone at the femoral neck (mean difference (MD), 5.83; 95% credible interval (CrI), 1.61 to 9.27). No significant difference was detected when restricting to absolute terms. At the lumbar spine, bisphosphonate and calcium with or without vitamin D analogs outperformed calcium solely (MD, 0.07; 95% CrI, 0.00 to 0.13; MD, 0.06; 95% CrI, 0.02 to 0.09). Compared to calcium with vitamin D analogs, adding bisphosphonate was associated with marked improvement (MD, 0.03; 95% CrI, 0.00 to 0.05). Considering percent terms, combination of bisphosphonate with calcium and vitamin D analogs showed greater beneficial effects than calcium alone or with either vitamin D analogs or calcitonin (MD, 10.51; 95% CrI, 5.92 to 15.34; MD, 5.48; 95% CrI, 2.57 to 8.42; MD, 6.39; 95% CrI, 0.55 to 12.89). Both bisphosphonate and vitamin D analogs combined with calcium displayed a notable improvement compared to calcium alone (MD, 7.24; 95% CrI, 3.73 to 10.69; MD, 5.02; 95% CrI, 1.20 to 8.84). CONCLUSIONS:Our study suggested that additional use of bisphosphonate was well-tolerated and more favorable in KTRs to improve BMD.

Project description:Study designSystematic review.ObjectiveTo compare the effectiveness and safety between iliac crest bone graft (ICBG), non-ICBG autologous bone, and allograft in cervical spine fusion. To avoid problems at the donor site, various allograft materials have been used as a substitute for autograft. However, there are still questions as to the comparative effectiveness and safety of cadaver allograft compared with autologous ICBG.MethodsA systematic search of multiple major medical reference databases was conducted to identify studies evaluating spinal fusion in patients with cervical degenerative disk disease using ICBG compared with non-ICBG autograft or allograft or non-ICBG autograft compared with allograft in the cervical spine. Radiographic fusion, patient-reported outcomes, and functional outcomes were the primary outcomes of interest. Adverse events were evaluated for safety.ResultsThe search identified 13 comparative studies that met our inclusion criteria: 2 prospective cohort studies and 11 retrospective cohort studies. Twelve cohort studies compared allograft with ICBG autograft during anterior cervical fusion and demonstrated with a low evidence level of support that there are no differences in fusion percentages, pain scores, or functional results. There was insufficient evidence comparing patients receiving allograft with non-ICBG autograft for fusion, pain, revision, and functional and safety outcomes. No publications directly comparing non-ICBG autograft with ICBG were found.ConclusionAlthough the available literature suggests ICBG and allograft may have similar effectiveness in terms of fusion rates, pain scores, and functional outcomes following anterior cervical fusion, there are too many limitations in the available literature to draw any significant conclusions. No individual study provided greater than class III evidence, and when evaluating the overall body of literature, no conclusion had better than low evidence support. A prospective randomized trial with adequate sample size to compare fusion rates, efficacy measures, costs, and safety is warranted.

Project description:BackgroundVarious pharmacologic and non-pharmacologic approaches have been applied to reduce sublesional bone loss after spinal cord injury (SCI), and the results are inconsistent across the studies. The objective of this meta-analysis was to investigate whether the two most-studied interventions, bisphosphonate analogues and functional electrical stimulation (FES), could effectively decrease bone mineral density (BMD) attenuation and/or restore lost BMD in the SCI population.MethodsRandomized controlled trials, quasi-experimental studies, and prospective follow-up studies employing bisphosphonates or FES to treat post-SCI osteoporosis were identified in PubMed and Scopus. The primary outcome was the percentage of BMD change from baseline measured by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DEXA) or computed tomography (CT). Data were extracted from four points: the 3rd, 6th, 12th, and 18th month after intervention.ResultsA total of 19 studies were included in the analysis and involved 364 patients and 14 healthy individuals. Acute SCI participants treated with bisphosphonate therapy demonstrated a trend toward less bone loss than participants who received placebos or usual care. A significant difference in BMD decline was noted between both groups at the 3rd and 12th month post-medication. The subgroup analysis failed to show the superiority of intravenous bisphosphonate over oral administration. Regarding FES training, chronic SCI patients had 5.96% (95% CI, 2.08% to 9.84%), 7.21% (95%CI, 1.79% to 12.62%), and 9.56% (95% CI, 2.86% to 16.26%) increases in BMD at the 3rd, 6th, and 12th months post-treatment, respectively. The studies employing FES ? 5 days per week were likely to have better effectiveness than studies using FES ? 3 days per week.ConclusionsOur meta-analysis indicated bisphosphonate administration early following SCI effectively attenuated sublesional bone loss. FES intervention for chronic SCI patients could significantly increase sublesional BMD near the site of maximal mechanical loading.

Project description:ObjectiveTo comprehensively compare and assess the effects of different lumbar fusion techniques in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS).MethodsPubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases were systematically searched up to December 24, 2022 in this network meta-analysis. Outcomes were pain (pain, low back pain, and leg pain), Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), complications, reoperation, and fusion. Network plots illustrated the direct and indirect comparisons of different fusion techniques for the outcomes. League tables showed the comparisons of any two fusion techniques, based on both direct and indirect evidence. The efficacy of each fusion technique for LSS was ranked by rank probabilities.ResultsTotally 29 studies involving 2,379 patients were eligible. For pain, percutaneous endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (Endo-TLIF) was most likely to be the best technique, followed by minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF), extreme lateral interbody fusion (XLIF), and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF). Percutaneous endoscopic posterior lumbar interbody fusion (Endo-PLIF) had the greatest likelihood to be the optimal technique for low back pain, followed sequentially by MIS-TLIF, minimally invasive posterior lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-PLIF), XLIF, Endo-TLIF, TLIF, oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF), posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF), and posterolateral lumbar fusion (PLF). MIS-PLIF was ranked the most effective technique concerning leg pain, followed by Endo-TLIF, MIS-TLIF, TLIF, Endo-PLIF, PLIF, OLIF, PLF, and XLIF. As regards JOA scores, Endo-TLIF had the maximum probability to be the best technique, followed by MIS-TLIF and TLIF. Endo-PLIF had the greatest likelihood to be the optimum technique for complications, followed by TLIF, MIS-TLIF, Endo-TLIF, OLIF, and XLIF.ConclusionMinimally invasive fusion techniques may be effective in the treatment of LSS, compared with traditional techniques. Minimally invasive techniques were likely non-inferior with regards to postoperative complications.

Dataset Information

Effects of teriparatide and bisphosphonate on spinal fusion procedure: A systematic review and network meta-analysis.

Publications

Effects of teriparatide and bisphosphonate on spinal fusion procedure: A systematic review and network meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets