Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28101655›Full record

ReviewEuropean journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society2017

Percutaneous vertebral augmentation in fragility fractures-indications and limitations.

O Gonschorek, S Hauck, T Weiß, V Bühren

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

15 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Fragility fractures of the spine.European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society · 2017
    Article
  15. Article
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

4 authors.

O GonschorekDepartment of Spine Surgery, BGU Trauma Center, Prof. Küntscher Str. 8, 82418, Murnau, Germany. oliver.gonschorek@bgu-murnau.de.
S HauckDepartment of Spine Surgery, BGU Trauma Center, Prof. Küntscher Str. 8, 82418, Murnau, Germany.
T WeißDepartment of Spine Surgery, BGU Trauma Center, Prof. Küntscher Str. 8, 82418, Murnau, Germany.
V BührenDepartment of Spine Surgery, BGU Trauma Center, Prof. Küntscher Str. 8, 82418, Murnau, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionThere is still no general consensus about the management of osteoporotic vertebral fractures. Recommendations depend on type of fracture, grade of instability, bone quality, and general conditions of the patient. Spontaneous fractures may be considered to be treated different compared to cases with high-velocity trauma.

methodsAccording to the DVO, patients without trauma should first be treated conservatively. However, there is no more strict time protocol of 3 or 6 week conservative treatment before operations may be indicated. Surgical criteria are not yet distinctly defined. For highly unstable fractures (type B and C according to the AO Spine Classification), posterior instrumentation with cement augmented screws and as long construct, respectively, is adequate. Current literature has been analysed for diagnostic and therapeutic protocols.

resultsThere is no clear operative concept for burst fractures and classic osteoporotic fractures with dynamic ongoing sintering. Percutaneous vertebral augmentation showed to prevent the fractures from ongoing kyphotic deformity and the patients from painful immobilization. Indications and results of classical vertebroplasty and kyphoplasty have been discussed intensively in the literature. Further development included special injection techniques, cements with different viscosities and stenting systems to reach more stable constructs and avoid typical complications, such as cement extrusion.

conclusionsThis review reports upon indications and limitations of percutaneous vertebral augmentation and the potential development of classifications and therapeutic algorithms.

Indexed as

Bone CementsBone ScrewsFracture Fixation, InternalHumansOsteoporotic FracturesSpinal FracturesVertebroplastyBone CementsCement augmentationKyphoplastyOsteoporotic fracturePercutaneous techniqueThoracolumbar spineVertebroplasty

Identifiers

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.