Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27683690›Full record

ReviewJournal of spine surgery (Hong Kong)2016

Third-generation percutaneous vertebral augmentation systems.

Daniele Vanni, Renato Galzio, Anna Kazakova, Andrea Pantalone, Giovanni Grillea, Marcello Bartolo, Vincenzo Salini, Vincenzo Magliani

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of spine surgery (Hong Kong), 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 35 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
35citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.7field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

35 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 70 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. 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 · 2019
    Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Percutaneous vertebral augmentation-pearls and pitfalls.Journal of spine surgery (Hong Kong) · 2023
    Article
  20. 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

8 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Daniele VanniOrthopaedic and Traumatology Department, "G. D'Annunzio" University, Chieti, Italy ;
Renato GalzioNeurosurgery Department, "L'Aquila" University, L'Aquila, Italy ;
Anna KazakovaNeurotraumatology and Vertebro-Medullary Surgery, "Renzetti Hospital", Lanciano, Italy ;
Andrea PantaloneOrthopaedic and Traumatology Department, "G. D'Annunzio" University, Chieti, Italy ;
Giovanni GrilleaDiagnostic and Therapeutic Neuroradiology Unit, IRCCS INM Neuromed, Pozzilli, Isernia, Italy.
Marcello BartoloDiagnostic and Therapeutic Neuroradiology Unit, IRCCS INM Neuromed, Pozzilli, Isernia, Italy.
Vincenzo SaliniOrthopaedic and Traumatology Department, "G. D'Annunzio" University, Chieti, Italy ;
Vincenzo MaglianiNeurotraumatology and Vertebro-Medullary Surgery, "Renzetti Hospital", Lanciano, Italy ;
Ospedale "Floraspe Renzetti" · ITUniversity of Chieti-Pescara · ITUniversity of L'Aquila · ITIstituto Neurologico Mediterraneo · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Currently, there is no general consensus about the management of osteoporotic vertebral fractures (OVF). In the past, conservative treatment for at least one month was deemed appropriate for the majority of vertebral fractures. When pain persisted after conservative treatment, it was necessary to consider surgical interventions including: vertebroplasty for vertebral fractures with less than 30% loss of height of the affected vertebral body and kyphoplasty for vertebral fractures with greater than 30% loss of height. Currently, this type of treatment is not feasible. Herein we review the characteristics and methods of operation of three of the most common percutaneous vertebral augmentation systems (PVAS) for the treatment of OVF: Vertebral Body Stenting(®) (VBS), OsseoFix(®) and Spine Jack(®). VBS is a titanium device accompanied by a hydraulic (as opposed to mechanical) working system which allows a partial and not immediate possibility to control the opening of the device. On the other hand, OsseoFix(®) and Spine Jack(®) are accompanied by a mechanical working system which allows a progressive and controlled reduction of the vertebral fracture. Another important aspect to consider is the vertebral body height recovery. OsseoFix(®) has an indirect mechanism of action: the compaction of the trabecular bone causes an increase in the vertebral body height. Unlike the Vertebral Body Stenting(®) and Spine Jack(®), the OsseoFix(®) has no direct lift mechanism. Therefore, for these characteristics and for the force that this device is able to provide. In our opinion, Spine Jack(®) is the only device also suitable for the treatment OVF, traumatic fracture (recent, old or inveterate) and primary or secondary bone tumors.

Indexed as

OsseoFixOsteoporotic vertebral fractures (OVF)primary or secondary vertebral tumorsSpine Jacktraumatic vertebral fracturesVertebral Body Stenting

Identifiers

PMID27683690
PMCPMC5039833
OpenAlexW2331913275

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.