Effect of Bisphosphonates or Teriparatide on Mechanical Complications after Posterior Instrumented Fusion for Osteoporotic Vertebral Fracture: A Multi-center Retrospective Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background: The optimal treatment of osteoporosis after reconstruction surgery for osteoporotic vertebral fractures (OVF) remains unclear. In this multicentre retrospective study, we investigated the effects of typically used agents for osteoporosis, namely, bisphosphonates (BP) and teriparatide (TP), on surgical results in patients with osteoporotic vertebral fractures. Methods: Retrospectively registered data were collected from 27 universities and affiliated hospitals in Japan. We compared the effects of BP vs TP on postoperative mechanical complication rates, implant-related reoperation rates, and clinical outcomes in patients who underwent posterior instrumented fusion for OVF and had been followed up at least for 2 years. Data were analysed according to whether the osteoporosis was primary or glucocorticoid-induced. Results: A total of 165 patients who underwent posterior instrumented fusion for OVF were included. The overall mechanical complication rate was significantly lower in the TP group than in the BP group (BP vs TP: 73.0% vs. 55.7%, p = 0.018). The screw backout rate was significantly lower and the rates of new vertebral fractures and pseudoarthrosis tended to be lower in the TP group than in the BP group. However, there were no significant differences in lumbar functional scores and visual analogue scale pain scores or in implant-related reoperation rates between the two groups. The incidence of pseudoarthrosis was significantly higher in patients with glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis (GIOP) than in those with primary osteoporosis; however, the pseudoarthrosis rate was reduced by using TP. The use of TP also tended to reduce the overall mechanical complication rate in both primary osteoporosis and GIOP. Conclusions: The overall mechanical complication rate was lower in patients who received TP than in those who received a BP postoperatively, regardless of type of osteoporosis. The incidence of pseudoarthrosis was significantly higher in patients with GIOP, but the use of TP reduced the rate of pseudoarthrosis in GIOP patients.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".