Prospective trial compares PCKP and UPKP effects on OVCF outcomes, suggesting treatment pathways for varying severities.
Background Percutaneous curved kyphoplasty (PCKP) demonstrates early advantages in treating osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures (OVCFs), but its long-term efficacy and patient-selection criteria remain controversial. Objective The aim of this study is to prospectively compare the mid-to-long-term outcomes of PCKP versus unilateral percutaneous kyphoplasty (UPKP) for single-level OVCFs and establish a hierarchical decision model based on vertebral compression severity. Methods A total of 139 patients with single-level OVCFs (January 2021–January 2023) were randomized to PCKP (n = 67) or UPKP (n = 72), with ≥24-month follow-up. Outcomes included the visual analog score (VAS), Oswestry dysfunction index (ODI), cement distribution (type I–V classification), leakage rate, and re-fracture incidence. Anti-osteoporosis compliance was analyzed for its impact on efficacy. Results Both groups showed significant postoperative improvement in VAS and ODI ( p < 0.05). PCKP achieved superior early pain relief (VAS: 1.99 ± 0.77 vs. 3.47 ± 0.50; ODI: 27.07 ± 1.78 vs. 35.33 ± 3.12 at 2 days, p < 0.001), a higher cement distribution excellence rate (91.04% vs. 76.39%), and a lower leakage rate (10.45% vs. 26.39%). However, outcomes converged from 3 months onward ( p > 0.05), with no significant differences in re-fracture (11.94% vs. 15.28%) or anti-osteoporosis compliance (28.36% vs. 33.33%). Subgroup analysis revealed that PCKP provided more symmetric cement distribution ( p = 0.02) and a 21% lower leakage risk in moderate-to-severe OVCFs (Genant 2–3). Conclusion PCKP enhances early biomechanical stability in moderate-to-severe OVCFs through optimized cement dispersion, while long-term efficacy relies on standardized anti-osteoporosis therapy. A stepwise decision model (“PCKP for Genant 2–3, UPKP for mild cases”), combined with a “vertebral augmentation–bone metabolism modulation–behavioral intervention” strategy, is recommended.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Yang et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: