Comparative analysis of the safety and efficacy of fenestrated pedicle screw with cement and conventional pedicle screw with cement in the treatment of osteoporotic vertebral fractures:A meta-analysis  

作　　者：Li Cao Hong-Jie Xu Yi-Kang Yu Huan-Huan Tang Bo-Hao Fang Ke Chen 

机构地区：[1]Department of Orthopedics and Traumatology,Linping District Integrated Traditional and Western Medicine Hospital,Hangzhou,311199,China [2]School of Pharmaceutical Sciences,Zhejiang Chinese Medical University,Hangzhou,311403,China [3]Bison(Xiamen)Medical Technology Co.,Ltd.,Hangzhou,310012,China [4]Department of Orthopaedics,Xinhua Hospital of Zhejiang Province,The Second Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang Chinese Medical University,Hangzhou,310003,China

出　　处：《Chinese Journal of Traumatology》2025年第2期101-112,共12页中华创伤杂志(英文版)

基　　金：Zhejiang Traditional Chinese Medicine Science and Technology Program Project(Project No.:2023ZL429).

摘　　要：Purpose:Bone cement-reinforced fenestrated pedicle screws(FPSs)have been widely used in the internal fixation and repair of the spine with osteoporosis in recent years and show significant improvement in fixation strength and stability.However,compared with conventional reinforcement methods,the advantages of bone cement-reinforced FPSs remain undetermined.This article compares the effects of fenestrated and conventional pedicle screws(CPSs)combined with bone cement in the treatment of osteoporosis.Methods:A clinical control study of FPSs and CPSs combined with bone cement reinforcement in osteoporotic vertebral internal fixation was performed using the database PubMed,Embase,Cochrane Library,CNKI,the Wanfang,and the China Biomedical Literature Service System.Two evaluators screened the relevant literature in strict accordance with the inclusion criteria(diagnosis of participants,type of clinical study,treatment with FPS and CPS,and outcome indicators)and exclusion criteria(duplicate literature and missing or incorrect data)and independently conducted data extraction and quality evaluation.Clinical control studies of direct comparison between FPS and CPS combined with bone cement reinforcement in patients who were definitively diagnosed with thoracolumbar fractures or spinal degenerative diseases were included.Quality evaluation was conducted using the Cochrane risk bias evaluation tool for randomized controlled studies and using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for retrospective case-control studies.RevMan software(version 5.3)was used for the meta-analysis to compare the clinical efficacy,radiological results,and related complications of the 2 methods.Results:A total of 13 articles were included,including 7 randomized controlled studies and 6 retrospective case-control studies.There were 909 patients in these studies,451 in the FPS and polymethyl methacrylate(FPS&PMMA)group and 458 in the CPS and polymethyl methacrylate(CPS&PMMA)group.The results of the meta-analysis showed that there was no significant difference be

关 键 词：Pedicle screw Internal fixation Bone cement strengthening Bone cement leakage OSTEOPOROSIS COMPLICATION META-ANALYSIS 

分 类 号：R687.3[医药卫生—骨科学]