Skip to main content
JDRS · Open access journal
Joint Diseases and
Related Surgery
Online manuscript submissionSubmit a manuscript e-ISSN 2687-4792

Original Article · Open access

Unilateral extrapedicular versus unilateral and bilateral transpedicular approaches in percutaneous vertebral augmentation for osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures: A meta-analysis

PDF Cite this article

Jun-feng Du

Department of Orthopedics, Shangyu People’s Hospital of Shaoxing, Shaoxing University, Shaoxing City, Zhejiang Province, China

ORCID: 0009-0008-5901-1501

Wei-dong Chen

Department of Orthopedics, Shangyu People’s Hospital of Shaoxing, Shaoxing University, Shaoxing City, Zhejiang Province, China

ORCID: 0009-0005-7852-6883

Lin Liang

Department of Orthopedics, Shangyu People’s Hospital of Shaoxing, Shaoxing University, Shaoxing City, Zhejiang Province, China

ORCID: 0000-0002-2635-2958

Abstract

Objectives: The present meta-analysis aims to perform a comprehensive, evidence-based comparison of the effectiveness and safety of the unilateral extrapedicular approach (UEA) percutaneous vertebral augmentation and transpedicular approach percutaneous vertebral augmentation for osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures (OVCFs).

Materials and methods: Publications indexed up to May 2025 were interrogated across Cochrane Library, Web of Science, PubMed, Embase, and SpringerLink using the combined keywords “unilateral extrapedicular approach”, “transpedicular approach”, “percutaneous vertebral augmentation”, “percutaneous vertebroplasty”, “percutaneous kyphoplasty”, and “osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures”. Mean difference (MD) and risk difference (RD) served as summary metrics, each expressed with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

Results: Eight clinical trials involving 830 patients were included. The UEA significantly shortened operative time (MD=–4.26; 95% CI:–6.15 ~ –2.37; p<0.00001), compared to unilateral transpedicular approach (UTA), while no statistically significant differences were observed in cement leakage (RD:–0.01; 95% CI:–0.09 ~ 0.07; p=0.88), cement injection volume (MD=0.20; 95% CI:–0.02 ~ 0.41; p=0.07), or intraoperative fluoroscopy times (MD=–1.15; 95% CI:–3.62 ~ 1.32; p=0.36). Notably, UEA demonstrated significant advantages over bilateral transpedicular approach (BPA) in reducing cement leakage rate (RD:–0.08; 95% CI:–0.14 ~ –0.02; p=0.01), decreasing cement injection volume (MD=–1.51; 95% CI:–2.98 ~ –0.04; p=0.04), shortening operative time (MD=–9.64; 95% CI:–13.25 ~ –6.04; p<0.00001), and minimizing intraoperative fluoroscopy times (MD=–8.12; 95% CI:–12.36 ~ –3.88; p=0.0002). However, no significant intergroup differences were found between UEA and BPA in postoperative Visual Analog Scale (VAS) (MD=–0.04; 95% CI:–0.24 ~ 0.17; p=0.73), postoperative Cobb angle (MD=–0.37; 95% CI:–0.54 ~ 1.28; p=0.42) or Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) (MD=–0.54; 95% CI:–2.81 ~ 1.72; p=0.64).

Conclusion: In the management of OVCFs, UEA offers shorter operative time compared with UTA. Additionally, UEA shows remarkable superiority over BPA in cement injection volume, cement leakage rate, intraoperative fluoroscopy frequency and operative time.

Declarations

Author Contributions

Contributed to conception and design of this study, study selection and data extraction of the finally included studies were done independently assessed the methodological quality of each included stud, contributed to preparation of the manuscript: J.F.D., W.D.C., L.L. The final version of the article was approved by all the authors.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declared no conflicts of interest with respect to the authorship and/or publication of this article.

Financial Disclosure

The authors received no financial support for the research and/or authorship of this article.

Data Sharing Statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

References

  1. Benedict C, Chopra AA, Pitcher M, Jeansonne N, Fox E. Rate of osteoporosis evaluation and treatment following kyphoplasty in patients with vertebral compression fractures: A retrospective study and review of the literature. Geriatr Orthop Surg Rehabil 2025;16:21514593251332463. DOI: 10.1177/21514593251332463.
  2. Tanaka T, Liu X, Shojima H, Momozaki N, Honda E, Matsuno A. Fighting the fracture cascade: Early and repeated balloon kyphoplasty as a bridge until the effects of osteoporosis treatment become apparent in a super-aged patient. Cureus 2025;17:e84419. DOI: 10.7759/cureus.84419.
  3. Rabei R, Patel K, Ginsburg M, Patel MV, Turba UC, Arslan B, et al. Percutaneous vertebral augmentation for vertebral compression fractures: National trends in the medicare population (2005-2015). Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2019;44:123-33. DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000002893.
  4. Sun Y, Li X, Ma S, Chong H, Cai TC, Li KM, et al. Comparison of the efficacy and safety of unilateral and bilateral approach kyphoplasty in the treatment of osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures: A meta-analysis. Jt Dis Relat Surg 2024;35:491-503. DOI: 10.52312/jdrs.2024.1701.
  5. Yang B, Wang S. A novel unilateral extrapedicular approach applied to percutaneous vertebral augmentation to treat thoracic and lumbar Osteoporotic Vertebral Compression Fracture: A retrospective study. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2024;25:868. DOI: 10.1186/s12891-024-07980-3.
  6. Zhang T, Deng Y. A design of a targeted puncture trajectory applied to unilateral extrapedicular percutaneous vertebroplasty. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2023;24:268. DOI: 10.1186/s12891-023-06387-w.
  7. Cho SM, Nam YS, Cho BM, Lee SY, Oh SM, Kim MK. Unilateral extrapedicular vertebroplasty and kyphoplasty in lumbar compression fractures: Technique, anatomy and preliminary results. J Korean Neurosurg Soc 2011;49:273-7. DOI: 10.3340/jkns.2011.49.5.273.
  8. Han KR, Kim C, Eun JS, Chung YS. Extrapedicular approach of percutaneous vertebroplasty in the treatment of upper and mid-thoracic vertebral compression fracture. Acta Radiol 2005;46:280-7. DOI: 10.1080/02841850510021058.
  9. Kim T, Park J, Cho J, Yi JS, Lee HJ. Quantitative comparison of vertebral structural changes after percutaneous vertebroplasty between unilateral extrapedicular approach and bilateral transpedicular approach using voxel-based morphometry. Neurospine 2023;20:1287-302. DOI: 10.14245/ns.2346536.268.
  10. Schupfner R, Koniarikova K, Pfeifer C, Grechenig P, Bakota B, Staresinic M, et al. An anatomical study of transpedicular vs. extrapedicular approach for kyphoplasty and vertebroplasty in the thoracic spine. Injury 2021;52 Suppl 5:S63-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.injury.2020.11.017.
  11. Zhang W, Liu S, Liu X, Li X, Wang L, Wan Y. Unilateral percutaneous vertebroplasty for osteoporotic lumbar compression fractures: A comparative study between transverse process root-pedicle approach and conventional transpedicular approach. J Orthop Surg Res 2021;16:73. DOI: 10.1186/s13018-021-02219-6.
  12. Tao Y, Guo Z, Miao L, Shi H, Zhang Y, Wang W. Modified versus conventional percutaneous kyphoplasty for osteoporotic vertebral compression fracture treatment: A systematic review and pilot meta-analysis. Arch Osteoporos 2025;20:50. DOI: 10.1007/s11657-025-01522-7.
  13. Handoll HH, Gillespie WJ, Gillespie LD, Madhok R. The Cochrane Collaboration: A leading role in producing reliable evidence to inform healthcare decisions in musculoskeletal trauma and disorders. Indian J Orthop 2008;42:247-51. DOI: 10.4103/0019-5413.41849.
  14. Slim K, Nini E, Forestier D, Kwiatkowski F, Panis Y, Chipponi J. Methodological index for non-randomized studies (minors): Development and validation of a new instrument. ANZ J Surg 2003;73:712-6. DOI: 10.1046/j.1445-2197.2003.02748.x.
  15. Hong H, Li J, Ding H, Deng Y, Deng Z, Jiang Q. Unilaterally extrapedicular versus transpedicular kyphoplasty in treating osteoporotic lumbar fractures: A randomized controlled study. J Orthop Surg Res 2023;18:801. DOI: 10.1186/s13018-023-04267-6.
  16. Tang L, Zhang H, Yang Y, Huang HQ. Hidden blood loss of percutaneous vertebroplasty for osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures. Jt Dis Relat Surg 2025;36:240-7. DOI: 10.52312/jdrs.2025.2201.
  17. Zheng J, Luan H, He Y, Hong L, Han P, Wang X, et al. Clinical efficacy analysis of extrapedicular unilateral percutaneous vertebroplasty via the upper edge of the transverse process for lumbar osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2025;26:293. DOI: 10.1186/s12891-025-08534-x.
  18. He H, Tan Y, Yang S, Zhang C, Luo X. Study of unilateral extrapedicular and bilateral pedicle approach percutaneous kyphoplasty for osteoporotic vertebral compression fracture. J Coll Physicians Surg Pak 2022;32:924-7. DOI: 10.29271/jcpsp.2022.07.924.
  19. Wang ZH, Wu DH, Ma C, Dai WX, Wu JB, Zhao M, et al. Comparison between bipedicular approach and uniextrapedicular approach in application of vertebroplasty. Zhongguo Gu Shang 2012;25:975-8.
  20. Xu D, Ruan C, Wang Y, Hu X, Ma W. Comparison of the clinical effect of unilateral transverse process extrapedicular and bilateral transpedicular percutaneous kyphoplasty for thoracolumbar osteoporotic vertebral compression fracture. Front Surg 2024;11:1395289. DOI: 10.3389/fsurg.2024.1395289.
  21. Zhao X, Han X, Li C, Han B, Zhu T, Shi Y, et al. Comparative study between unilateral and bilateral extrapedicular approaches for osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures: A retrospective study. Sci Prog 2025;108:368504251318194. DOI: 10.1177/00368504251318194.
  22. Zhu D, Hu J, Wang L, Zhu J, Ma S, Liu B. A comparison between modified unilateral extrapedicular and bilateral transpedicular percutaneous kyphoplasty in the treatment of lumbar osteoporotic vertebral compression fracture. World Neurosurg 2022;166:e99-108. DOI: 10.1016/j.wneu.2022.06.115.
  23. Park EJ, Lee HJ, Jang MG, Ahn JS, Kim SB. A novel vertebroplasty technique using a larger-diameter needle for thoracolumbar osteoporotic vertebral compression fracture. Medicine (Baltimore) 2021;100:e26174. DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000026174.
  24. Nie B, Wang Q, Li B, Ou N, Yang Z. Exploration of percutaneous vertebroplasty in the treatment of osteoporotic vertebral compression fracture as day surgery: A retrospective study. Eur Spine J 2021;30:2718-25. DOI: 10.1007/s00586-021-06887-0.
  25. Noguchi T, Yamashita K, Kamei R, Maehara J. Current status and challenges of Percutaneous Vertebroplasty (PVP). Jpn J Radiol 2023;41:1-13. DOI: 10.1007/s11604-022-01322-w.
  26. Huang J, Yang J, Chen L, Xu Y, Wang S. A novel puncture approach via point "O" for percutaneous kyphoplasty in patients with L4 or L5 osteoporotic vertebral compression fracture. Sci Rep 2022;12:18868. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-022-23732-6.
  27. Shi X, Li P, Li J, Bao C, Xiang J, Lu Y. Comparative evaluation of an innovative deflectable percutaneous kyphoplasty versus conventional bilateral percutaneous kyphoplasty for osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures: A prospective, randomized and controlled trial. Spine J 2023;23:585-98. DOI: 10.1016/j.spinee.2022.12.012.
  28. Cheng H, Chen BP, Soleas IM, Ferko NC, Cameron CG, Hinoul P. Prolonged operative duration increases risk of surgical site infections: A systematic review. Surg Infect (Larchmt) 2017;18:722-35. DOI: 10.1089/sur.2017.089.
  29. Zhang Y, Peng Q, Sun C, Kang X, Hu M, Zhao W, et al. Robot versus fluoroscopy-assisted vertebroplasty and kyphoplasty for osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures: A systematic review and meta-analysis. World Neurosurg 2022;166:120-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.wneu.2022.07.083.
  30. Wu Y, Zhou Z, Lu G, Ye L, Lao A, Ouyang S, et al. Risk factors for cement leakage after percutaneous vertebral augmentation for osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures: A meta-analysis. Int J Surg 2025;111:1231-43. DOI: 10.1097/JS9.0000000000001895.
  31. Kakazu C, Lippmann M, Karnwal A. Theatre team contracts multiple syndromes as a result of bone cement. Br J Anaesth 2016;116:303. DOI: 10.1093/bja/aev469.
  32. Groen RJ, du Toit DF, Phillips FM, Hoogland PV, Kuizenga K, Coppes MH, et al. Anatomical and pathological considerations in percutaneous vertebroplasty and kyphoplasty: A reappraisal of the vertebral venous system. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2004;29:1465-71. DOI: 10.1097/01.brs.0000128758.64381.75.
  33. Alhashash M, Shousha M, Barakat AS, Boehm H. Effects of polymethylmethacrylate cement viscosity and bone porosity on cement leakage and new vertebral fractures after percutaneous vertebroplasty: A prospective study. Global Spine J 2019;9:754-60. DOI: 10.1177/2192568219830327.
  34. Venmans A, Klazen CA, Lohle PN, van Rooij WJ, Verhaar HJ, de Vries J, et al. Percutaneous vertebroplasty and pulmonary cement embolism: Results from VERTOS II. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2010;31:1451-3. DOI: 10.3174/ajnr.A2127.
  35. Afzal S, Dhar S, Vasavada NB, Akbar S. Percutaneous vertebroplasty for osteoporotic fractures. Pain Physician 2007;10:559-63.
  36. Chen J, Wang X, Qian H, Ye J, Qian J, Hua J. Correlation between common postoperative complications of prolonged bed rest and quality of life in hospitalized elderly hip fracture patients. Ann Palliat Med 2020;9:1125-33. DOI: 10.21037/apm-20-891.