Letters
Musculoskeletal diseases Medical practices
Volume 184 - Issue 11

Clinical outcomes after acute osteoporotic vertebral fractures

Author:  James L Mallows

Med J Aust 2006; 184 (11): 589-590. || doi: 10.5694/j.1326-5377.2006.tb00393.x
Published online: 5 June 2006
Download PDF (349 KB)
Share: Share on Blue Sky Share on Facebook Share on LinkedIn Share by email

To the Editor: I note with interest the findings of Diamond et al.1 However, I would like to make some comments about the validity of the results presented.

The authors state that an intention-to-treat analysis was used. However, this was unusual as the intention was to treat everybody, with the control group being made up of patients who were offered the intervention but refused it because of the lack of published data on the safety of the procedure.

There was a marked decrease in the pain scores at 24 hours in the intervention group. The methods state that all patients were offered similar analgesia titrated to individual need. However, there was no mention of how many of the intervention group (if any), compared with the control group, received parenteral analgesia. The intervention group may have tended to receive more parenteral analgesia than the control group, but this was not mentioned. Indeed, Predey et al2 specifically mention this possibility in their review.

Diamond et al state that lower pain scores persisted in the vertebroplasty-treated group at 6 weeks. However, from the results given in Box 3, it seems that there was no clinically significant difference between the intervention and control groups at 6 weeks. I would have liked the report to have included pain scores at 1 week.

The decision to use means ± 1 SD instead of 95% CIs in the results is interesting. One SD will only include 66% of a normal population whereas a 95% CI would refer to the mean ± 2 SDs. More importantly, the size of the SD introduces the possibility of an enormous spread in the pain scores for both groups, which was not commented on in the Results or the Discussion.

Finally, it was unclear whether the patients were treated in the private or public hospital system.

Regardless of my comments above, I applaud any attempt to treat back pain in elderly people (especially that caused by osteoporotic crush fractures) in a time-expedient fashion. I look forward to the day when this therapy is first-line treatment for this disease and not something to consider 2 weeks down the track. The cost savings in reduced length of stay and the decreased morbidity associated with this treatment, as well as the reduced geriatric workload with the more rapid improvement in function, must outweigh the initial up-front costs.

View this article on Wiley Online Library