Background and Objectives: Osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures (OVCFs) are prevalent among the elderly, often leading to significant pain, morbidity, and mortality. Effective management of underlying osteoporosis is essential to prevent subsequent fractures. This study aimed to compare the clinical and radiographic outcomes of teriparatide and denosumab treatments in patients with OVCFs to determine their relative effectiveness in improving patient outcomes. Materials and Methods: This retrospective study included 78 patients diagnosed with an acute thoracolumbar OVCF who received either teriparatide (35 patients) or denosumab (43 patients) within three months of a fracture. Clinical outcomes were assessed using the visual analog scale (VAS) for back pain, Oswestry disability index (ODI), and EQ-5D quality of life scores at baseline, 6 months, and 12 months. Bone mineral density (BMD) and radiographic outcomes were evaluated initially and at 12 months post-treatment. Results: Both treatment groups demonstrated significant improvements in VAS, ODI, and EQ-5D scores over 12 months. No significant differences were observed between the teriparatide and denosumab groups in terms of clinical outcomes or radiographic measurements at any time point. Fracture union and BMD improvements were similarly observed in both groups. The teriparatide group had a lower baseline BMD, but this did not affect the overall outcomes. Conclusions: Both teriparatide and denosumab are effective in improving clinical and radiographic outcomes in patients with OVCFs. Despite concerns about denosumab’s potential to hinder fracture healing, our study found no significant differences between the two treatments. These findings support the use of denosumab for early treatment of OVCFs to prevent subsequent fractures without compromising fracture healing. Further prospective studies are needed to confirm these results.

Background: Three-dimensionally printed titanium (3D-Ti) cages can be divided into 2 types: window-type cages, which have a void for bone graft, and non-window-type cages without a void. Few studies have investigated the necessity of a void for bone graft in fusion surgery. Therefore, the present study assessed the clinical and radiographic outcomes of window and non-window-type 3D-Ti cages in single-level posterior lumbar interbody fusion. Methods: A total of 70 patients were randomly assigned to receive either a window or non-window cage; 61 patients (87%) completed final follow-up (32 from the window cage group, 29 from the non-window cage group). Radiographic outcomes, including fusion rates, subsidence, and intra-cage osseointegration patterns, were assessed. Intra-cage osseointegration was measured using the intra-cage bridging bone score for the window cage group and the surface osseointegration ratio score for the non-window cage group. Additionally, we looked for the presence of the trabecular bone remodeling (TBR) sign on computed tomography (CT) images. Results: Of the 61 patients, 58 achieved interbody fusion, resulting in a 95.1% fusion rate. The fusion rate in the non-window cage group was comparable to, and not significantly different from, that in the window cage group (96.6% and 93.8%, p > 0.99). The subsidence rate showed no significant difference between the window and non-window cage groups (15.6% and 3.4%, respectively; p = 0.262). The intra-cage osseointegration scores showed a significant difference between the groups (p = 0.007), with the non-window cage group having a higher proportion of cases with a score of 4 compared with the window cage group. The TBR sign was observed in 87.9% of patients who achieved interbody fusion, with a higher rate in the non-window cage group across the entire cohort although the difference was not significant (89.7% versus 78.1%, p = 0.385). Conclusions: Non-window-type 3D-Ti cages showed equivalent clinical outcomes compared with window-type cages and comparable interbody fusion rates. These results suggest that the potential advantages of 3D-Ti cages could be optimized in the absence of a void for bone graft by providing a larger contact surface for osseointegration. Level of Evidence: Therapeutic Level II. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Shim DM, et al. J Korean Soc Spine Surg. 2020 Jun;27(2):70-76. https://doi.org/10.4184/jkss.2020.27.2.70

Ham DW, et al. Clin Orthop Surg. 2025 Oct;17(5):826-835. https://doi.org/10.4055/cios24389