ArticleJournal of bone oncology2017
Comparison of percutaneous vertebroplasty with and without interventional tumor removal for spinal metastatic tumor without epidural involvement.
Article in Journal of bone oncology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- A Systematic Review of Clinical Outcomes and Technical Considerations: Endoscopic Spine Surgery for Primary Spinal Tumors.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Integrated management of metastatic spinal tumors: current status and future directions.Medical oncology (Northwood, London, England) · 2025Review
- A review and update of vertebral fractures due to metastatic tumors of various sites to the spine: Percutaneous vertebroplasty.Interventional medicine & applied science · 2018Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo evaluate the efficacy of percutaneous vertebroplasty (PVP) combined with interventional tumor removal (ITR) in providing pain relief, reducing disability, and improving functional performance in patients with malignant vertebral compression fractures without epidural involvement.
methodsPatients with malignant vertebral compression fractures (n=58) were treated with either PVP+ITR (n=31, group A) or PVP alone (n=27, group B). A 14 G needle was inserted into the vertebral body, and the tract was sequentially dilated with working cannulae. When the last working cannula had reached the distal pedicle of vertebral arch, ITR was performed with a marrow nucleus rongeurs inserted through the working cannula. Finally, cement was injected into the excavated vertebral body. Patients were followed up at 1, 3, and 6 months after the procedure, and every 6 months thereafter.
resultsThe overall excellent and good pain relief rate during follow-ups was significantly better in group A than in group B (94% vs.56%;
conclusionsThe combination of PVP+ITR is a safe and effective procedure, capable of providing significantly greater pain relief and vertebral stability than PVP alone in patients with malignant vertebral compression fractures.
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.