- Research article
- Open Access
- Open Peer Review
Balloon kyphoplasty in malignant spinal fractures: a systematic review and meta-analysis
© Bouza et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2009
- Received: 19 February 2009
- Accepted: 9 September 2009
- Published: 9 September 2009
Spinal fractures are a common source of morbidity in cancer patients. Balloon Kyphoplasty (BKP) is a minimally invasive procedure designed to stabilize fractures and correct vertebral deformities. We performed a meta-analysis to determine the efficacy and safety of BKP for spinal fractures in cancer patients.
We searched several electronic databases up to September 2008 and the reference lists of relevant publications for studies reporting on BKP in patients with spinal fractures secondary to osteolytic metastasis and multiple myeloma. Outcomes sought included pain relief, functional capacity, quality of life, vertebral height, kyphotic angle and adverse events. Studies were assessed for methodological bias, and estimates of effect were calculated using a random-effects model. Potential reasons for heterogeneity were explored.
The literature search revealed seven relevant studies published from 2003 to 2008, none of which were randomized trials. Analysis of those studies indicated that BKP resulted in less pain and better functional outcomes, and that these effects were maintained up to 2 years post-procedure. While BKP also improved early vertebral height loss and spinal deformity, these effects were not long-term. No serious procedure-related complications were described. Clinically asymptomatic cement leakage occurred in 6% of all treated levels, and new vertebral fractures in 10% of patients. While there is a lack of studies comparing BKP to other interventions, some data suggested that BKP provided similar pain relief as vertebroplasty and a lower cement leakage rate.
It appears that there is level III evidence showing BKP is a well-tolerated, relatively safe and effective technique that provides early pain relief and improved functional outcomes in patients with painful neoplastic spinal fractures. BKP also provided long-term benefits in terms of pain and disability. However, the methodological quality of the original studies prevents definitive conclusions being drawn. Further investigation into the use of BKP for spinal fractures in cancer patients is warranted.
- Multiple Myeloma
- Vertebral Fracture
- Oswestry Disability Index
- Spinal Fracture
- Clinical Complication
Spinal fractures are a common source of morbidity in patients with osteolytic metastasis and multiple myeloma [1–3]. Located principally in the thoracic and lumbar spine [4, 5], these fractures often result in intractable back pain and impaired mobility because of vertebral height loss and spinal deformity [2, 3, 6]. In addition, the severe physiological and functional consequences have negative impacts on physical function, pulmonary capacity, nutritional state, psychological well-being and quality of life. Furthermore, spinal fractures increase the risk of new fractures, the number of hospitalizations and the incidence of all-cause mortality [1, 3, 6–8].
Traditional medical and surgical options often prove inadequate in spinal fracture patients. Due to the fragility and comorbidities associated with these patients, the surgical risk is high and open surgery is reserved only for cases with neurological involvement [1, 5, 6]. Additionally, non-surgical supportive treatments (e.g., analgesics, bed rest, use of braces or other external support systems, radiotherapy, hormone therapy, chemotherapy, radiopharmaceuticals and bisphosphonates) show variable outcomes, and single modality approaches are rarely effective [1, 6, 9, 10].
In recent years, minimally invasive surgical techniques have emerged as an attractive option that reduce recovery time and surgical risks [1, 5, 11, 12]. Balloon Kyphoplasty (BKP) is a percutaneous procedure used to relieve pain, restore vertebral height and reduce biomechanical alterations of the spine caused by fractures, and in turn improve physiological and functional outcomes [12–14]. BKP involves the introduction of a cannula into the vertebral body under image guidance, followed by the insertion of an inflatable bone tamp which is used to elevate the endplates. This reduces the deformity and creates a cavity within the vertebral body, and this cavity is subsequently filled with bone cement (polymethyl methacrylate, PMMA) in a controlled manner so as to minimize the risk of cement leakage [12–14].
Several reviews have recently shown that BKP is a relatively effective and safe treatment for painful osteoporotic vertebral fractures, its most common indication [12, 15, 16]. However, to our knowledge, BKP use in cancer patients has not been specifically analyzed.
The present study performed a meta-analysis of published reports describing the use of BKP in patients with spinal fractures of malignant origin. The study examined patient outcome data in order to determine the efficacy and safety of using BKP for spinal fractures in cancer patients.
A systematic literature search was carried out up to September 2008 using several databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, ISI Proceedings, The Cochrane Library, DARE, NHS EED and the HTA Database of the CRD). The search strategy was: #1: (balloon kyphoplasty), #2: (fracture*) or (vertebra*) or (neoplasm*) or (tumor*), #3: #1 and #2. There were no language restrictions. The search was completed manually using references from identified studies and reviews , and contact was made with experts in the field. No contact was made with industry.
Sackett's criteria , duly amended, were applied as follows: 1) population: studies conducted on more than 10 adults with spinal fractures of malignant origin; 2) intervention: BKP; 3) comparator: any medical or surgical treatment; 4) results: including a description of clinical outcomes regarding at least one of the following variables: pain, functional capacity, quality of life, vertebral height, kyphotic angle, cement leakages, clinical complications and new vertebral fractures.
No limitations were placed on study design or duration of follow-up .
Selection of studies
The located studies were examined by two independent reviewers, and any disagreements were settled by discussion of the respective study data. During the data screening and extraction process, reviewers were not blinded to authors, institutions, or journals.
Original data were extracted on a standard form that included details of the study design, information on the study population, and information on efficacy and safety outcomes.
Analysis of methodological quality and scientific evidence
Data analysis and synthesis of results
To obtain an overall measure of the efficacy and safety of BKP, standard meta-analytical techniques were applied using the SE-STATA 9 computer software package (StataCorp LP Texas USA 1984-2007). Meta-analysis was conducted using a random-effects model . Dichotomous outcomes were analyzed using rate ratios (RR) and corresponding 95% confidence interval. Continuous variables were analyzed using standardized or weighted differences in means (with 95% confidence intervals) between pre- and post- treatment values at the respective assessment dates. When an original study failed to provide a standard deviation of a continuous variable, it was estimated from the publication data (range or P-value) . When the original study provided a standard error rather than a standard deviation, the latter was calculated using standard formulas. The degree of inconsistency across studies was evaluated using I2 statistics, considering a value > 50% to be relevant . We used sensitivity analysis to explore statistical heterogeneity. Results were deemed significant at a P-value < 0.05. In accordance with recent publications, funnel-plots were not used to estimate possible publication bias .
Principal characteristics of the included studies
No. of patients/
Estimated age of VF
Painful progressive osteolytic VF secondary to multiple myeloma
Unstable (by virtue of myelomatous destruction of the posterior elements) or with retropulsed tissue or bone fragments.
VF with disabling pain refractory to prior medical and/or physical therapy in cancer patients
Epidural compression of the neural elements; failure to localize symptomatic levels; radicular pain; intolerance to being positioned prone or significant medical contraindications
(1 wk-26 mo)
Painful VF secondary to multiple myeloma
VF with intractable mechanical pain refractory to medical and/or physical therapy in cancer patients.
Overt instability; clinical and/or radiological spinal cord compression; lesions above T3; absence of correlating symptoms (not mechanical pain and/or not localized to the area of VF).
13 cases:3 mo
35 cases: 10 mo
Symptomatic VF in myeloma with pain refractory to medical therapy.
VF with severe refractory pain in patients with myeloma
Metastatic VF with severe and refractory back pain.
Quality assessment of included studies
The studies were examined for bias in accordance with validated references [19, 20]. We found that most studies were designed to avoid most types of bias, with some exceptions (Table 2). However, a number of studies did not provide information on whether the results were assessed independently (Table 2). No study was randomized and the level of evidence corresponded to grade III . However, the samples were representative and the studies were found to provide effective information on pre- and post-intervention variables and evaluated objective outcomes, and more than half reported follow-up of over 80% of patients .
Efficacy of BKP for malignant spinal fractures: Results of meta-analysis
Studies providing data
Size of effect (95%CI); P-value; I2
Pain: VAS score (0-10)
SMD: 3.85 (2.99, 4.71); p < .001; 79%
Baseline-end of follow-up
SMD: 4.27 (2.38, 6.21); p < .001; 93%
WMD:-28.78 (-11.5,- 46.0);p = .001; 99%
WMD:-16.39 (-14.25,-18.5);p = .001; 0%
WMD:-41.95 (-39.42, -44.5);p = .001; 0%
Kyphotic deformity (Cobb angle):
SMD:-0.69 (-0.20, -1.16); p = .001; 78%
Baseline-end of follow-up
SMD: -0.39 (0.05, -0.84); p = .08; 74%
% of restitution
RR:47% (33%, 61%); 38%
Anterior vertebral body
SMD:0.28 (0.06, 0.51); p = .01; 0%
Baseline-end of follow-up
SMD: 0.15 (-0.16, 0.45); p = .35; 37%
Midline vertebral body
SMD:0.28 (0.003, 0.56); p = .04; 34%
Baseline-end of follow-up
SMD:0.15 (-0.17, 0.46); p = .35; 41%
Fourney's study  showed that both BKP and vertebroplasty relieved pain to a similar degree in a high percentage of patients. Kose's study  indicated that although both BKP and vertebroplasty relieved pain, BKP provided greater pain relief at 6 and 12 months postoperatively [see Additional file 1].
Changes in functional capacity were recorded in four studies using the validated Oswestry Disability Index (ODI 0-100) [25, 27, 33, 34]. In all studies, comparisons between preoperative and postoperative values showed a significant decrease in ODI scores after treatment, indicating a decrease in impairment [see Additional file 1]. The combined analysis indicated improved functional capacity after BKP, and that the improvement was sustained over the follow-up period (Table 3). Heterogeneity was found to be related to differences in the mean basal pre-procedure ODI scores.
Quality of Life
All studies reported obvious improvement in patient quality of life after the procedure. However, only one study  evaluated the effect on quality of life using the SF-36 questionnaire. That study found significant improvements in physical function, physical role, bodily pain, vitality, social functioning, and mental health, but no improvements in general health perception or emotional role [see Additional file 1].
Three studies analyzed this variable using the absolute Cobb angle value [26, 32, 33]. Joint analysis in these studies found that BKP resulted in a decrease in the angle's absolute value (Table 3), although with a high degree of heterogeneity and a wide variation among studies in both baseline and post-treatment values of deformity [see Additional file 1]. Follow-up analysis showed partial loss of the initial effect, with the absolute value of the angle ultimately decreasing to preoperative levels (Table 2) and the pooled differences being not significant (Table 3).
Although the number of levels varied among studies, each study in which this variable was recorded [25–27, 30, 33, 34] reported a post-BKP increase in vertebral height. However, the increase was expressed differently in each study [see Additional file 1]. Several authors [25–27] recorded the percentage of vertebral height restoration after BKP, and the mean restoration across these studies was 47% (Table 3). In contrast, Pflugmacher [33, 34] measured vertebral height gained in millimeters. Pooled analysis of his data showed increases in both anterior and midline vertebral body after BKP. However, neither of these increases was statistically maintained at the end of the follow-up period.
In Fourney's study , 6 asymptomatic leakages were observed in the 65 levels treated with vertebroplasty, representing 9%, while no leakages were observed in patients treated with BKP. Kose's comparative study  recorded no cement leaks in patients treated with either BKP or vertebroplasty.
New Vertebral Fractures
Although poorly reported across the studies, a small number of patients treated with BKP experienced clinical complications, but no deaths were reported within 30 days of BKP [see Additional file 1]. Two studies reported complications unrelated to the procedure. In Fourney's study , one patient was readmitted to hospital 15 days after BKP due to an exacerbation of pre-existing congestive heart failure, while Vrionis et al.  recorded a case of asystole in a patient with a history of lung cancer with multiple brain metastases. No evidence of pulmonary embolism due to cement leakage was seen postoperatively and the exact cause of asystole was undetermined. That patient recovered to her preoperative level, but died 1 month after surgery from unrelated causes.
In a comparative study, Kose  recorded no post-surgical neurological or pulmonary complications after any intervention. Although that article stated that two patients suffered minor clinical complications (wound infection and temporary respiratory difficulties while being placed in position for surgery), the authors did not indicate which intervention had been performed (i.e., BKP or vertebroplasty).
The present study found that there are very few reports on the efficacy and safety of BKP for treating tumor-associated spinal fractures. Furthermore, all such reports have a non-randomized design, and are limited in terms of number of patients, procedures and reported outcomes. Nonetheless, a combined analysis of these reports provided results in broad agreement with earlier reports examining osteoporotic fractures [15, 16, 34–37].
The present meta-analysis found that BKP provided immediate pain relief, and that the relief can continue for up to 2 years. This pain relief is not only clinically significant (i.e., a change of 2.0 - 2.7 points on the VAS, which is equivalent to a reduction of 30 - 41%) , but of great benefit because most patients have intense and refractory pain resistant to painkillers and conventional medical therapy. The mechanism underlying this pain relief remains to be identified .
The current study also found that BKP resulted in improved functional outcomes. BKP improved functional capacity as assessed by the Oswestry Disability Index. In addition, the study that assessed quality of life using the standard SF-36 questionnaire found improvement in nearly every domain, including vitality, social function and mental health. Interestingly, that study found no significant improvement in general health perception, which was not clearly explained but may reflect progression of the primary malignant disease.
The third major finding of this study was that BKP appeared to reduce the kyphotic angle and, at least partially, restored the height of the collapsed vertebral body. However, this evidence was limited due to the diverse methods used for these assessments. In addition, there was a progressive postoperative decrease in the amount of improvement, and the morphologic benefits were not maintained over the entire follow-up period. Hence, these findings do not suggest that the technique prevents the severe physiological and systemic effects of spinal fractures, which is one of its main objectives [13, 14].
Regarding safety, it appears that BKP is a safe procedure. Though BKP was usually performed under general anesthesia, very few clinical complications were reported, of which none was serious. No study recorded neurological or pulmonary complications. Most studies found that any clinical complications were not directly related to the technique but to comorbidities or the progression of the initial disease. However, given the typical frailty of BKP patients, the procedure should be carried out in centers equipped to treat possible neurological or cardiopulmonary complications.
Cement leakages occurred in approximately 6% of all treated levels. While study design influenced that analysis, leakages were asymptomatic in all cases. Our results indicate that approximately 10% of patients will develop a new vertebral collapse within two years after treatment. The development of new vertebral fractures seems to be more frequent (nearly double) in patients with multiple myeloma than in metastatic cases. This is not surprising given several studies have found myeloma patients are more vulnerable to fractures . The present figures compare favorably with other published data [15, 16, 35]. Overall, the data suggest that the incidence of new fractures after a BKP-based intervention is not higher than the spontaneous incidence of new vertebral fractures (19-24%) described for untreated patients .
Finally, mention should be made to the fact that, at this time, there is an evident lack of studies comparing BKP with other interventions, both invasive and non-invasive. The present findings indicate that BKP and vertebroplasty provide similar pain relief, but that BKP is associated with a lower cement leakage rate, as has been observed elsewhere [35–37].
The current study has several potential limitations. Publication bias may exist by limiting our search to peer-reviewed literature. Nevertheless, we feel that any such bias would have been minimized by the scope of and systematic strategy used in the search of the literature, and we are confident that most research conducted in this field was identified [17, 39]. We did not include unpublished data from industry given both the difficulties encountered in obtaining such information and the recognition that the use of such data may not necessarily reduce the bias in a meta-analysis [39, 40].
The methodological quality of the studies, particularly their non-randomized design, may constitute another limitation of this work . To our knowledge, there are no published reports of randomized clinical trials examining the use of BKP for malignant spinal fractures. However, such an absence should not prevent analysis of its efficacy and safety, and evaluation of new technologies and procedures, as this would deprive patients, professionals and health authorities of essential information for decision-making [41–44]. The present study followed the guidelines outlined by the Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology Group  in order to identify and collate relevant data from available studies.
Lastly, we should recognize that the present findings were based on original studies involving relatively small sample sizes, making them susceptible to the inherent problems associated with such a study design .
The present study found that there is level III evidence showing that BKP is a well-tolerated, relatively safe and effective method for reducing pain and improving functional outcomes in patients with painful neoplastic spinal fractures. While BKP also provided immediate improvement in vertebral height loss and spinal deformity, these morphologic changes were not long-term. The limited data available in this area indicate the need for long-term high-quality controlled studies to ascertain the clinical role of BKP for patients with painful neoplastic spinal fractures. Future studies should also have consistent reporting of clinically useful outcomes.
This study was supported by the Spanish I+D Program (grant PI060816). We also thank Raimundo Alcázar for assistance with literature searches.
- Coleman RE: Management of bone metastases. Oncologist. 2000, 5: 463-470. 10.1634/theoncologist.5-6-463.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Melton LJ, Kyle RA, Achenbach SJ, Oberg Al, Rajkumar SV: Fracture risk with multiple myeloma: a population-based study. J Bone Miner Res. 2005, 20: 487-493. 10.1359/JBMR.041131.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Coleman RE: Clinical features of metastatic bone disease and risk of skeletal morbidity. Clin Cancer Res. 2006, 12 (suppl 20): 6243-6249. 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-06-0931.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Lecouvet FE, Berg Vande BC, Maldague BE, Michaux L, Laterre E, Michaux JL, Ferrant A, Malghem J: Vertebral compression fractures in multiple myeloma. Part I. Distribution and appearance at MR imaging. Radiology. 1997, 204: 195-199.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Klimo P, Schmidt MH: Surgical management of spinal metastases. Oncologist. 2004, 9: 188-196. 10.1634/theoncologist.9-2-188.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Costa L, Badia X, Chow E, Lipton A, Wardley A: Impact of skeletal complications on patients' quality of life, mobility, and functional independence. Support Care Cancer. 2008, 16: 879-889. 10.1007/s00520-008-0418-0.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Silverman SL: The clinical consequences of vertebral compression fracture. Bone. 1992, 13: S27-S31. 10.1016/8756-3282(92)90193-Z.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Lindsay R, Silverman SL, Cooper C: Risk of new vertebral fracture in the year following a fracture. JAMA. 2001, 285: 320-323. 10.1001/jama.285.3.320.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Francis RM, Baillie SP, Chuck AJ, Crook PR, Dunn N, Fordham JN, Kelly C, Rodgers A: Acute and long-term management of patients with vertebral fractures. Q J Med. 2004, 97: 63-74.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- von Moos R, Strasser F, Gillessen S, Zaugg K: Metastatic bone pain. treatment options with an emphasis on bisphosphonates. Support Care Cancer. 2008, 16: 1105-1115. 10.1007/s00520-008-0487-0.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Masala S, Fiori R, Massari F, Simonetti G: Vertebroplasty and Kyphoplasty: New equipment for malignant Vertebral fractures treatment. J Exp Clin Cancer Res. 2003, 22 (S4): 75-79.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Halpin RJ, Bendok BR, Liu JC: Minimally invasive treatments for spinal metastases: vertebroplasty, kyphoplasty, and radiofrequency ablation. J Support Oncol. 2004, 2: 339-351.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Garfin SR, Yuan HA, Reiley MA: New technologies in spine: kyphoplasty and vertebroplasty for the treatment of painful osteoporotic compression fractures. Spine. 2001, 26: 1511-1515. 10.1097/00007632-200107150-00002.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Belkoff SM, Mathis JM, Fenton DC, Fenton DC, Scribner RM, Reiley ME, Talmadge K: An ex vivo biomechanical evaluation of an inflatable bone tamp used in the treatment of compression fracture. Spine. 2001, 26: 151-156. 10.1097/00007632-200101150-00008.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Bouza C, López T, Magro A, Navalpotro L, Amate JM: Efficacy and safety of balloon kyphoplasty in the treatment of vertebral compression fractures: a systematic review. Eur Spine J. 2006, 15: 1050-1067. 10.1007/s00586-005-0048-x.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Taylor RS, Fritzell P, Taylor RJ: Balloon kyphoplasty in the management of vertebral compression fractures: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Spine J. 2007, 16: 1085-1100. 10.1007/s00586-007-0308-z.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Royle P, Waugh N: Literature searching for clinical and cost-effectiveness studies used in health technology assessments reports carried out for the National Institute for Clinical Excellence appraisal system. Health Technol Assess. 2003, 7 (34): 1-51.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Sackett DL, Richardson WS, Rosenberg W: Evidence-Based Medicine. How to Practice and Teach EBM. 1997, New York: Churchill LivingstoneGoogle Scholar
- National Institute for Clinical Excelence: Guide to the Methods of Technology Appraisal. London. 2004, 10.1016/S0895-4356(99)00204-8.Google Scholar
- Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Version 5.0.0 [updated February 2008). The Cochrane Collaboration. 10.1200/JCO.2002.09.097. [http://www.cochrane-handbook.org]
- Sterne JA: Meta-analysis in STATA™. Systematic Reviews in Health Care: Meta-Analysis in Context. 2001, London: BMJ books, 347-369.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Schwartz D: Méthodes statistiques à l'usage des médecins et des biologistes. 1981, Paris: Flammarion Médecine-ScienceGoogle Scholar
- Tang J, Liu JL: Misleading funnel plot for detection of bias in meta-analysis. J Clin Epidemiol. 2000, 53: 477-484. 10.1097/01.blo.0000093841.72468.a8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Dudeney S, Lieberman IH, Reinhardt MK, Hussein M: Kyphoplasty in the treatment of osteolytic vertebral compression fractures as a result of multiple myeloma. J Clin Oncol. 2002, 20: 2382-2387. 10.3171/jns.2003.98.1.0021.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Lieberman I, Reinhardt MK: Vertebroplasty and kyphoplasty for osteolytic vertebral collapse. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2003, 415S: S176-S186. 10.1097/01.blo.0000131642.96984.74.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Fourney DR, Schomer DF, Nader R, Nader R, Chlan-Fourney J, Suki D, Ahrar K, Rhines LD, Gokaslan ZL: Percutaneous vertebroplasty and kyphoplasty for painful vertebral body fractures in cancer patients. J Neurosurg. 2003, 98: 21-30. 10.1053/j.trap.2005.01.003.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Lane JM, Hong R, Koob J, Kiechle T, Niesvizky R, Pearse R, Siegel D, Poynton AR: Kyphoplasty enhances function and structural alignment in multiple myeloma. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2004, 426: 49-53. 10.1007/s00198-006-0068-3.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Vrionis FD, Hamm A, Stanton N, Sullivan M, Obadia M, Miguel RVl: Kyphoplasty for tumor-associated spinal fractures. Techniques in Regional Anesthesia and Pain Management. 2005, 9: 35-39.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Khanna AJ, Reinhardt MK, Togawa D, Lieberman IH: Functional outcomes of kyphoplasty for the treatment of osteoporotic and osteolytic vertebral compression fractures. Osteoporos Int. 2006, 17: 817-826. 10.1080/02841850600570425.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Kose KC, Cebesoy O, Akan B, Altinel l, Dincer D, Yazar T: Functional results of vertebral augmentation techniques in pathological vertebral fractures of myelomatous patients. J Natl Med Assoc. 2006, 98: 1654-1658. 10.1080/02841850601026427.PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Pflugmacher R, Kandziora F, Schroeder RJ, Melcher I, Haas NP, Klostermann CK: Percutaneous balloon kyphoplasty in the treatment of pathological vertebral body fracture and deformity in multiple myeloma: a one-year follow-up. Acta Radiol. 2006, 47: 369-376. 10.1055/s-2007-960502.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Pflugmacher R, Beth P, Schroeder RJ, Schaser KD, Melcher I: Balloon kyphoplasty for the treatment of pathological fractures in the thoracic and lumbar spine caused by metastasis: one-year follow-up. Acta Radiol. 2007, 48: 89-95. 10.1007/s00586-008-0701-2.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Pflugmacher R, Schulz A, Schroeder RJ, Schaser KD, Klostermann CK, Melcher : I[A prospective two-year follow-up of thoracic and lumbar osteolytic vertebral fractures caused by multiple myeloma treated with balloon kyphoplasty]. Z Orthop Ihre Grenzgeb. 2007, 145: 39-47. 10.1016/j.spinee.2007.04.004.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Pflugmacher R, Taylor R, Agarwal A, Melcher I, Dish A, Haas NP, Klostermann C: Balloon kyphoplasty in the treatment of metastatic disease of the spine: a 2-year prospective evaluation. Eur Spine J. 2008, 17: 1042-1048. 10.1097/01.brs.0000229254.89952.6b.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Eck JC, Nachtigall D, Humphreys SC, Hodges SD: Comparison of vertebroplasty and balloon kyphoplasty for treatment of vertebral compression fractures: a meta-analysis of the literature. Spine J. 2008, 8: 488-497. 10.1097/01.brs.0000244639.71656.7d.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Hulme PA, Krebs J, Ferguson SJ, Berlemann U: Vertebroplasty and kyphoplasty: a systematic review of 69 clinical studies. Spine. 2006, 31: 1983-2001. 10.1016/j.jpain.2007.09.005.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Taylor RS, Taylor RJ, Fritzell P: Balloon kyphoplasty and vertebroplasty for vertebral compression fractures: a comparative systematic review of efficacy and safety. Spine. 2006, 31: 2747-2755.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Dworkin RH, Turk DC, Wyrwich KW, Beaton D, Cleeland CS, Farrar JT, Haythornthwaite JA, Jensen MP, Kerns RD, Ader DN, Brandenburg N, Burke LB, Cella D, Chandler J, Cowan P, Dimitrova R, Dionne R, Hertz S, Jadad AR, Katz NP, Kehlet H, Kramer LD, Manning DC, McCormick C, McDermott MP, McQuay HJ, Patel S, Porter L, Quessy S, Rappaport BA, Rauschkolb C, Revicki DA, Rothman M, Schmader KE, Stacey BR, Stauffer JW, von Stein T, White RE, Witter J, Zavisic S: Interpreting the clinical importance of treatment outcomes in chronic pain clinical trials: IMMPACT recommendations. J Pain. 2008, 9: 105-121. 10.1017/S0266462300103150.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Song F, Eastwood AJ, Gilbody S, Duley L, Sutton AJ: Publication and related biases. Health Technol Assess. 2000, 4 (10): 1-105.Google Scholar
- Ferguson D, Laupacis A, Salmi LR, McAlister FA, Huet C: What should be included in meta-analysis? An exploration of methodological issues. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2000, 16: 1109-1119.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Atkins D, Fink K, Slutsky J: Better Information for Better Health Care: The Evidence-based Practice Center Program and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Ann Intern Med. 2005, 142: 1035-1041. 10.1001/jama.283.15.2008.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Hartling L, Mcalister FA, Rowe BH, Ezekowitz J, Friesen C, Klassen TP: Challenges in Systematic Reviews of Therapeutic Devices and Procedures. Ann Intern Med. 2005, 142: 1100-1111. 10.1016/S1072-7515(03)00112-1.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Stroup DF, Berlin JA, Morton SC, Olkin I, Williamson GD, Rennie D, Moher D, Becker BJ, Sipe TA, Thacker SB, for the Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) group: Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology a proposal for reporting. JAMA. 2000, 283: 2008-2012. 10.1016/S0304-3959(98)00140-7.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Strasberg SM, Ludbrook PA: Who oversees innovative practice? Is there a structure that meets the monitoring need of new techniques?. J Am Coll Surg. 2003, 196: 938-948.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Moore RA, Gavaghan D, Tremer MR, Collins Sl, McQuay HJ: Size is everything-large amounts of information are needed to overcome random effects in estimating direction and magnitude of treatment effects. Pain. 1998, 78: 209-216.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- The pre-publication history for this paper can be accessed here:http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-684X/8/12/prepub
This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.