Although vertebroplasty is very effective for relieving acute pain from an osteoporotic vertebral compression fracture, not all patients who undergo vertebroplasty receive the same degree of benefit from the procedure. In order to identify the ideal candidate for vertebroplasty, pre-operative prognostic demographic or clinico-radiological factors need to be identified. The objective of this study was to identify the pre-operative prognostic factors related to the effect of vertebroplasty on acute pain control using a cohort of surgically and non-surgically managed patients. Patients with single-level acute osteoporotic vertebral compression fracture at thoracolumbar junction (T10 to L2) were followed. If the patients were not satisfied with acute pain reduction after a three-week conservative treatment, vertebroplasty was recommended. Pain assessment was carried out at the time of diagnosis, as well as three, four, six, and 12 weeks after the diagnosis. The effect of vertebroplasty, compared with conservative treatment, on back pain (visual analogue score, VAS) was analysed with the use of analysis-of-covariance models that adjusted for pre-operative VAS scores.Objectives
Patients and Methods
To systematically evaluate whether bracing can effectively achieve curve regression in patients with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS), and to identify any predictors of curve regression after bracing. Two independent reviewers performed a comprehensive literature search in PubMed, Ovid, Web of Science, Scopus, and Cochrane Library to obtain all published information about the effectiveness of bracing in achieving curve regression in AIS patients. Search terms included “brace treatment” or “bracing,” “idiopathic scoliosis,” and “curve regression” or “curve reduction.” Inclusion criteria were studies recruiting patients with AIS undergoing brace treatment and one of the study outcomes must be curve regression or reduction, defined as > 5° reduction in coronal Cobb angle of a major curve upon bracing completion. Exclusion criteria were studies including non-AIS patients, studies not reporting p-value or confidence interval, animal studies, case reports, case series, and systematic reviews. The GRADE approach to assessing quality of evidence was used to evaluate each publication.Aims
Methods
