KCE leaned one hand on vertebroplasty and kyphoplasty, and the other on investment prosthetic intervertebral discs. Regarding the first two techniques, the experts concluded that there was no difference in efficacy between them, but that there are not significant compared to placebo response.

Vertebroplasty and kyphoplasty, which aim to treat painful vertebral fractures by injecting cement are (directly or in a balloon that inflates it to create a vacuum), “are used to relieve pain and improve short-term quality of life, “the KCE. “But if one performs a simulated intervention (local anesthetic injection), the result is similar.”

Additional studies could be done to try to target a specific subgroup of patients who would a real benefit for either of these interventions suggests the KCE.

Regarding the placement of disc prostheses, in the place of cartilage intervertebral discs, the conclusion of KCE n is not particularly positive either. “The prostheses are effective in reducing pain, but no more” than conventional spinal fusion treatment, he says. The latter consists in securing together several vertebrae to relieve pain by reducing the compression of the nerve roots.

“The approach prosthesis, in theory, the advantage of respecting the mobility of vertebrae”, unlike the merger, said the KCE. But practically, “the analysis of published scientific studies on the topic has hardly helped to find evidence of the superiority of disc prostheses compared to vertebrae melt processing.”