Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20232196›Full record

ReviewDer Orthopade2010

[Degeneration and osteoporosis of the spine. Is there a modified procedure?].

K-S Delank, M Röllinghoff, K Eysel-Gosepath, R Sobottke, P Eysel

Abstract readEnglish AbstractReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Der Orthopade, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. A pedicle screw system and a lamina hook system provide similar primary and long-term stability: a biomechanical in vitro study with quasi-static and dynamic loading conditions.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2016
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

K-S DelankKlinik für Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie, Universität zu Köln, Joseph-Stelzmann-Strasse 9, 50924, Köln, Deutschland. stefan.delank@uk-koeln.de
M Röllinghoff
K Eysel-Gosepath
R Sobottke
P Eysel

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Reduced bone quality due to osteoporosis poses a fundamental problem in spine surgery instrumentation. The consequences observed most often are insufficient implant anchoring and adjacent fractures. In cases of manifest osteoporosis, several modern anchoring possibilities are at our disposal that, to differing degrees, increase the stability of the instrumentation. Cement augmentation of a fractured vertebra by means of kyphoplasty or vertebroplasty verifiably leads to significantly better pain reduction than conservative treatment does, at least in the short-term postoperative course. A difference between these two techniques has not yet been substantiated. The rate of adjacent fractures occurring after cement augmentation is not higher than in conservatively treated patients.

Indexed as

Biomechanical PhenomenaBone DensityBone ScrewsCombined Modality TherapyEquipment DesignEquipment Failure AnalysisFollow-Up StudiesFracture HealingFractures, SpontaneousHumansIntervertebral Disc DisplacementOsteoporosisPain MeasurementPostoperative ComplicationsQuality of LifeSpinal Diseases

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.