ReviewDer Orthopade2010
[Vertebroplasty: an update: value of percutaneous cement augmentation after randomized, placebo-controlled trials].
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 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Percutaneous vertebral augmentation in fragility fractures-indications and limitations.European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society · 2017Review
- Dual setting α-tricalcium phosphate cements.Journal of materials science. Materials in medicine · 2013Article
- What is the importance of "halo" phenomenon around bone cement following vertebral augmentation for osteoporotic compression fracture?Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA · 2012Article
- Kyphoplasty in osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures--guidelines and technical considerations.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2011Review
- Percutaneous vertebroplasty in vertebral compression fractures of benign or malignant origin: a prospective study of 1188 patients with follow-up of 12 months.Deutsches Arzteblatt international · 2011Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Percutaneous cement augmentation (kyphoplasty and vertebroplasty) has become established as a procedure for treatment of painful osteoporotic vertebral fractures and certain neoplastic changes. The injection of cement ensures rapid stabilization of the vertebra and prevents further sintering. This also results in pain improvement. Nonetheless, based on two placebo-controlled trials, this treatment approach has been called into question. However, these studies did not take the technical aspects of the treatment into consideration, and it appears probable that the amount of filler material chosen was too small so that the treatment group also received placebo. Furthermore, it is likely that mostly older fractures were treated so that the effect can no longer be expected to be as pronounced. A randomized, controlled trial comparing kyphoplasty to conservative management provided good evidence that cement augmentation is of benefit within the first year. Newer procedures for kyphoplasty are very promising, but their clinical significance still needs verification.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.