Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25213884›Full record

ArticleAJNR. American journal of neuroradiology2015

Vertebral augmentation for neoplastic lesions with posterior wall erosion and epidural mass.

A Cianfoni, E Raz, S Mauri, S Di Lascio, M Reinert, G Pesce, G Bonaldi

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.4field-weighted citation impact, top 36% of its field
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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Percutaneous vertebroplasty as treatment of malignant vertebral lesions: a systematic review and GRADE evaluation resulting in a Danish national clinical guideline.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 · 2020
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
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

7 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.

A CianfoniFrom the Departments of Neuroradiology (A.C., E.R.).
E RazFrom the Departments of Neuroradiology (A.C., E.R.) Department of Radiology (E.R.) New York University Langone Medical Center, New York, New York Department of Neurology and Psychiatry (E.R.), Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy eytan.raz@gmail.com.
S MauriOncology Institute of Italian Switzerland (S.M., S.D.L., G.P.), Bellinzona, Switzerland.
S Di LascioOncology Institute of Italian Switzerland (S.M., S.D.L., G.P.), Bellinzona, Switzerland.
M ReinertNeurosurgery (M.R.), Neurocenter of Southern Switzerland, Lugano, Switzerland.
G PesceOncology Institute of Italian Switzerland (S.M., S.D.L., G.P.), Bellinzona, Switzerland.
G BonaldiDepartment of Neuroradiology (G.B.), Papa Giovanni XXIII Hospital, Bergamo, Italy.
Institute of Oncology Research · CHLaboratory for Biomedical Neurosciences · CHSapienza University of Rome · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

background and purposeThe presence of a cortical erosion of the posterior wall or an epidural mass is commonly considered a contraindication to performing a vertebral augmentation, considering the perceived increased risk of an epidural cement leak. Our aim was to assess technical and clinical complications of vertebral augmentation procedures performed for pain palliation and/or stabilization of neoplastic lytic vertebral body lesions, with cortical erosion of the posterior wall, often associated with a soft-tissue epidural mass. MATERIALS AND

methodsIn 48 patients, we performed retrospective vertebral augmentation assessment on 70 consecutive levels with cortical erosion of the posterior wall, as demonstrated by preprocedural CT/MR imaging. An epidural mass was present in 31/70 (44.3%) levels. Cavity creation was performed with Coblation Wands before cement injection in 59/70 levels. Injection of high-viscosity polymethylmethacrylate was performed under real-time continuous fluoroscopic control. Postprocedural CT of the treated levels was performed in all cases. Clinical follow-up was performed at 1 and 4 weeks postprocedurally.

resultsIn 65/70 (92.8%) levels, the vertebral augmentation resulted in satisfactory polymethylmethacrylate filling of the lytic cavity and adjacent trabecular spaces in the anterior half of the vertebral body. An epidural leak of polymethylmethacrylate occurred in 10/70 (14.2%) levels, causing radicular pain in 3 patients, which spontaneously resolved within 1 week in 2 patients, while 1 patient with a T1-T2 foraminal leak developed severe weakness of the intrinsic hand muscles and a permanent motor deficit.

conclusionsIn our series of vertebral augmentation of neoplastic lytic vertebral lesions performed for palliation of pain and/or stabilization, we observed a polymethylmethacrylate epidural leak in only 14.2% of levels, despite the presence of cortical erosion of the posterior wall and an epidural mass, with an extremely low rate of clinical complications. Our data seem to justify use of vertebral augmentation in patients with intractable pain or those at risk for vertebral collapse.

Indexed as

AdultBone CementsEpidural SpaceFemaleFluoroscopyHumansMaleMiddle AgedPainPolymethyl MethacrylateRetrospective StudiesSpinal FracturesSpinal NeoplasmsTreatment OutcomeVertebroplastyBone CementsPolymethyl Methacrylate

Identifiers

PMID25213884
PMCPMC7965913
OpenAlexW1973157804

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.