Open AccessExercise vs Conventional Treatment for Treatment of Primary Osteoporosis: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials
Author(s) -
Yan Yan,
Tan Biao,
Fu Fanyu,
Chen Qianglong,
Li Wenlong,
Chen Weiheng,
He Haijun
Publication year - 2021
Publication title -
orthopaedic surgery
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.666
H-Index - 23
eISSN - 1757-7861
pISSN - 1757-7853
DOI - 10.1111/os.13036
Subject(s) - medicine , osteoporosis , meta analysis , femoral neck , cochrane library , randomized controlled trial , bone mineral , bone remodeling , physical therapy , lumbar , surgery
Objective Physical exercise has obvious effects on bone loss, pain relief, and improvement of bone metabolism indexes in patients with osteoporosis, but currently lacks sufficient evidence. The aim of this systematic review and meta‐analysis was to synthesize and present the best available evidence on the effectiveness and safety of exercises in the treatment of primary osteoporosis. Methods Publications pertaining to the effectiveness of exercise on bone mineral density (BMD), visual analog scores (VAS), and biochemical markers of bone metabolism in primary osteoporosis (POP) from PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, VIP, CNKI, and Wanfang Database were retrieved from their inception to April 2020. Results A total of 20 studies with 1824 participants were included. The results of the meta‐analysis revealed that exercise therapy for lumbar spine and femoral neck BMD is statistically different from conventional therapy (lumbar spine BMD: SMD = 0.78, 95%CI: 0.46, 1.10, P < 0.00001, I 2 = 85%; femoral neck BMD (SMD = 0.80, 95%CI: 0.34, 1.27, P = 0.0007, I 2 = 88%), exercise therapy can significantly increase the lumbar spine BMD of patients with OP, especially in lumbar spine2‐4 BMD (SMD = 0.47; 95%CI: 0.20, 0.75; P = 0.0008; I 2 = 69%). Compared with conventional treatment, kinesitherapy also has significant differences in alleviating the pain of POP patients (SMD = −1.39, 95%CI: −2.47,−0.31, P = 0.01, I 2 = 97%). Compared with conventional therapy, kinesitherapy has no significant difference in improving biochemical markers of bone metabolism such as bone glaprotein (BGP) (SMD = 2.59, 95%CI:0.90, 4.28, P = 0.003, I 2 = 98%), N‐terminal pro peptide of type I procollagen (PINP) (SMD = 0.77, 95%CI: −0.44 to 1.98, P = 0.21, I 2 = 95%), serum phosphorus (SMD = 0.04, 95%CI: −0.13, 0.22, P = 0.61, I 2 = 30%), alkaline phosphatase (ALP) (SMD = −0.08, 95%CI: −0.44, 0.27, P = 0.64, I 2 = 76%), and serum calcium (SMD = 0.12, 95%CI: −0.18, 0.43, P = 0.42, I 2 = 63%) in POP patients. Conclusions Kinesitherapy significantly improved lumbar spine and femoral neck BMD, and relieve the pain of patients in the current low‐quality evidence. Additional high‐quality evidence is required to confirm the effect of exercise therapy on the biochemical markers of bone metabolism in POP patients.