ReviewDer Unfallchirurg2015
[Biomechanical aspects of vertebral augmentation].
Review in Der Unfallchirurg, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- [Minimally invasive stabilization of thoracolumbar osteoporotic fractures].Der Unfallchirurg · 2020Review
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
backgroundWith increasing age, bone mass decreases and the structure of the cancellous bone in the vertebral body changes. Especially in osteoporotic patients, but also with metastases in the vertebral body, this leads to decreased strength and, thus, to an increased risk of vertebral fractures. It is expected that this problem will increase significantly because of demographic developments. To treat or to prevent such vertebral fractures, different augmentation techniques have been developed. They can mainly be divided into vertebroplasty or kyphoplasty procedures. PURPOSE: The goal of this paper is to summarize biomechanical aspects of these augmentations procedures and to present some alternative methods. MATERIALS AND
methodsWith vertebroplasty, the loss of bone mass is balanced by injecting bone cement which improves the failure strength of the affected vertebral body. With kyphoplasty, cavities are created and these are filled with bone cement.
resultsDisadvantages of vertebroplasty are uncontrollable cement extrusion and increased fracture risk in the adjacent vertebral bodies. With balloon kyphoplasty, the adjacent cancellous bone is compacted during dilation and, thus, does not allow good integration with the remaining trabeculae. In addition, this method is associated with an increased risk of fracture in the adjacent vertebrae. To counter these disadvantages, a number of new types of cement and alternative augmentation methods are being developed, with which the vertebral body may be filled or distracted.
conclusionThe efficacy of these new methods should be tested in appropriate experimental biomechanical studies before they are used in patients.
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.