ArticleJournal of craniovertebral junction & spine2012
New perspective for third generation percutaneous vertebral augmentation procedures: Preliminary results at 12 months.
Article in Journal of craniovertebral junction & spine, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 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
28 citing papers in PubMed, 50 citations in OpenAlex.
- Long-term safety and clinical performance of kyphoplasty and SpineJack® procedures in the treatment of osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures: a pilot, monocentric, investigator-initiated study.Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA · 2019Trial
- Anatomical and biological reconstruction of traumatic complete burst fractures of the thoracolumbar vertebrae using pedicle fixation combined with stent-armed kyphoplasty and intracorporeal bone grafting: technique rationale, 7-year experience and clinical, imaging, and histological outcomes.Journal of spine surgery (Hong Kong) · 2026Article
- Mechanical augmentation for vertebral compression fractures: A scoping review.Interventional pain medicine · 2026Review
- Biomaterials for vertebral body repair: interior augmentation and total replacement-a literature review of bone fusion outcomes in clinical studies.Journal of spine surgery (Hong Kong) · 2026Review
- The role of intracorporeal cancellous bone grafting in the biological augmentation of vertebral body fractures: a literature review, historical perspective, and update on imaging and bone healing outcomes.Journal of spine surgery (Hong Kong) · 2026Review
- Technical Limitations and Implant Developments in Percutaneous Kyphoplasty for Osteoporotic Vertebral Compression Fractures.Orthopaedic surgery · 2026Review
- L1 vertebral body replacement using 3D-printed polylactic acid bioimplants:Journal of spine surgery (Hong Kong) · 2025Article
- An Algorithmic Overview of Advanced Pain Therapies: A Narrative Review.Current pain and headache reports · 2025Review
- Surgical treatment of post-traumatic vertebral osteonecrosis including intravertebral expansive implants-clinical, functional and imaging outcomes and a center experience over 7 years.Journal of spine surgery (Hong Kong) · 2024Article
- The role of kyphoplasty and expandable intravertebral implants in the acute treatment of traumatic thoracolumbar vertebral compression fractures: a systematic review.EFORT open reviews · 2024Article
- Multilevel posterior spinal fusion following percutaneous third generation kyphoplasty complicated by vertebral compression fracture progression.Journal of surgical case reports · 2024Article
- Internal replacement of a vertebral body in pseudarthrosis-Armed kyphoplasty with bone graft-filled stents: Case report.Frontiers in surgery · 2023Article
- EXPANDABLE INTRAVERTEBRAL IMPLANTS IN POST-TRAUMATIC VERTEBRAL NECROSIS - NEW CLASSIFICATION SUGGESTION.Acta ortopedica brasileira · 2023Review
- Stent-armed kyphoplasty in osteoporotic thoracolumbar fractures-clinical and functional results and a center experience over 10 years.Journal of spine surgery (Hong Kong) · 2022Article
- Is vertebral stenting kyphoplasty a good choice in the treatment of osteoporotic vertebral fracture? A series of 47 patients (v2).Orthopedic reviews · 2022Article
- Balloon Kyphoplasty vs Vertebroplasty: A Systematic Review of Height Restoration in Osteoporotic Vertebral Compression Fractures.Journal of pain research · 2022Review
- INTRAVERTEBRAL EXPANDABLE IMPLANTS IN THORACOLUMBAR VERTEBRAL COMPRESSION FRACTURES.Acta ortopedica brasileira · 2022Article
- The American Society of Pain and Neuroscience (ASPN) Evidence-Based Clinical Guideline of Interventional Treatments for Low Back Pain.Journal of pain research · 2022Review
- Outcomes of different minimally invasive surgical treatments for vertebral compression fractures: An observational study.World journal of clinical cases · 2021Article
- Expandable Intravertebral Implants: A Narrative Review on the Concept, Biomechanics, and Outcomes in Traumatology.Cureus · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe prevalence of osteoporotic vertebral fractures (OVF) increased in the last years. Compression fractures promote a progressive spine kyphosis increase, resulting in a weight shift and anterior column overload, with OVF additional risk (domino effect). The aim of this study is to evaluate the OVF treatment outcome using Spine Jack(®), a titanium device for third generation percutaneous vertebral augmentation procedures (PVAPs). MATERIALS AND
methodsFrom February 2010, a prospective randomized study was performed examining 300 patients who underwent PVAP due to OVF type A1 according to Magerl/AO spine classification. Patients enrolled in the study were divided in two homogenous groups with regards to age (65-85 years), sex, and general clinical findings. Group A included 150 patients who underwent PVAP using Spine Jack(®) system; the second, group B (control group), included 150 patients treated by conventional balloon kyphoplasty. Patients underwent a clinical (visual analogue scale and Oswestry disability index) and radiographic follow-up, with post-operative standing plain radiogram of the spine at 1, 6, and 12 months. The radiographic parameters that were taken into account were: Post-operative anterior vertebral body height, pre-operative anterior vertebral body height, cephalic anterior vertebral body height, and caudal anterior vertebral body height.
resultsCompared to the Spine Jack(®) group, the kyphoplasty group required a little longer operation time (an average of 40 min-group A vs. 45 min-group B, P < 0.05) and a greater amount of polymethylmethacrylate (4.0 mL-group A vs. 5.0 mL-group B, P < 0.05;). The post-operative increase in vertebral body height was greater in the Spine Jack(®) group than in the kyphoplasty group (P < 0.05). DISCUSSION: PVAP are based on the cement injection into the vertebral body. Vertebroplasty does not allow the vertebral body height recovery. Balloon kyphoplasty allows a temporary height restoration. Spine Jack(®) has some new features compared to other systems: It is equipped with a mechanical and not a hydraulic opening control; this ensures a gradual and controlled vertebral fracture reduction.
conclusionsIn our study, we demonstrated that the third generation PVAP with Spine Jack(®) is able to determine a safe vertebral body height restoration compared to the conventional balloon kyphoplasty.
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.