ReviewDer Radiologe2006
[Vertebroplasty and kyphoplasty in patients with osteoporotic fractures: secured knowledge and open questions].
Review in Der Radiologe, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- [Kyphoplasty and vertebroplasty for the management of osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures: a systematic review].Der Orthopade · 2009Pooled it
- [Kyphoplasty in the treatment of osteoporotic spine fractures. Experience in over 500 patients].Zeitschrift fur Gerontologie und Geriatrie · 2012Article
- [Kyphoplasty in osteoporotic spinal fractures].Der Unfallchirurg · 2010Article
- [Introduction to the topic: diagnosis of osteoporosis - a paradigm shift].Der Radiologe · 2006Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cementoplasty, performed either as percutaneous vertebroplasty or kyphoplasty, has become well established as an effective technique to treat painful vertebral body fractures. It has low complication rates, is successful in alleviating pain, and improves the patients' mobility and quality of life. A series of questions remain open though or are the subject of controversial debate; for example, the results of several biomechanical studies are in part contradictory. Clinical data on subsequent fractures are also still inadequate, although the majority of studies show no elevated rate of subsequent fractures following treatment with cementoplasty in comparison to the natural course in patients with osteoporotic fractures. Kyphoplasty has the advantage of being able to restore the vertebral body height or reduce the kyphosis angle without leading to different clinical outcomes in comparison to vertebroplasty. Biomechanical considerations on whether restoration of the vertebral body's normal shape could reduce the rate of subsequent fractures still need scientific substantiation. Both surgical methods are employed in our clinic. Kyphoplasty seems to us to be indicated when the height of the anterior portion of the vertebral body is reduced by one-third compared to the norm or a kyphosis angle of more than 15-20 degrees is present. The goals of therapy are restoring the shape and reducing the kyphosis angle. This can only succeed, however, in fractures that are not older than 3 weeks. In all other cases vertebroplasty is performed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
16896638What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.