Advances in Vertebral Augmentation Systems for Osteoporotic Vertebral Compression Fractures

Table 1

The outcome comparison of different vertebral augmentation techniques.

PVP

PKP

OS

SJS

RFK

KVT

Pre

Po

Pre

Po

Pre

Po

Pre

Po

Pre

Po

Pre

Po

MVH

8.5 ± 1.1

8.6 ± 1.1

8.6 ± 1.1

12.4 ± 2.8

8.3 ± 1.1

13.1 ± 1.8

8.4 ± 1.1

12.9 ± 1.8

8.3 ± 1.3

12.5 ± 1.4

8.4 ± 2.1

12.7 ± 1.6

KA

15.9 ± 5.5

11.3 ± 3.8

16.7 ± 7.8

8.8 ± 5.4

11.7

10.4

14.3

8.5

13.9

8.1

15.7

7.9

CL

—

20–70%

—

4–13.4%

—

4%

—

5.00%

—

6%

—

0.03%

AF

—

0–7.8%

—

25–26%

—

11.40%

—

12.50%

—

0–10%

—

13.8%

VAS

8.2 ± 1.8

4.1 ± 1.4

8.4 ± 1.0

3.8 ± 2.0

7.7

3.4

7.4 ± 1.3

4.1 ± 2.1

8.0 ± 1.1

3.5 ± 2.7

8.2 ± 1.5

3.9 ± 1.9

ODI

67.1 ± 16.2

36.8 ± 11.3

65.6 ± 15.8

36.4 ± 10.7

70.6%

30.6%

82.5%

25.7%

83.2%

23.6%

81.4%

24.5%

PVP, percutaneous vertebroplasty; PKP, percutaneous kyphoplasty; OS, OsseoFix® System; SJS, SpineJack® System; RFK, radiofrequency kyphoplasty; KVT, Kiva VCF Treatment System; MVH, middle vertebral height; KA, kyphotic angle; CL, cement leakage; AF, adjacent fracture; VAS, visual analogue score; ODI, Oswestry Disability Index; Pre, preoperative; Po, postoperative.