Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30213804›Full record

ArticleAJNR. American journal of neuroradiology2018

Spinal Instrumentation Rescue with Cement Augmentation.

A Cianfoni, M Giamundo, M Pileggi, K Huscher, M Shapiro, M Isalberti, D Kuhlen, P Scarone

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Intervertebral Body Implant Salvage: Stabilization by Bone Augmentation.Cardiovascular and interventional radiology · 2023
    Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. 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

8 authors.

A CianfoniFrom the Departments of Neuroradiology (A.C., M.P., M.I.) alessandro.cianfoni@eoc.ch.ORCID 0000-0001-9333-4912
M GiamundoNeurosurgery (M.G., D.K., P.S.), Neurocenter of Southern Switzerland, Ente Ospedaliero Cantonale, Lugano, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0002-0082-7724
M PileggiFrom the Departments of Neuroradiology (A.C., M.P., M.I.).ORCID 0000-0002-7691-8999
K HuscherDepartment of Neurosurgery (K.H.), Hôpital du Valais, Sion, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0003-2168-7713
M ShapiroDepartment of Radiology (M.S.), New York University Langone Medical Center, New York, New York.ORCID 0000-0003-1279-5456
M IsalbertiFrom the Departments of Neuroradiology (A.C., M.P., M.I.).ORCID 0000-0001-6831-344X
D KuhlenNeurosurgery (M.G., D.K., P.S.), Neurocenter of Southern Switzerland, Ente Ospedaliero Cantonale, Lugano, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0002-3057-7025
P ScaroneNeurosurgery (M.G., D.K., P.S.), Neurocenter of Southern Switzerland, Ente Ospedaliero Cantonale, Lugano, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0003-4451-4954

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

background and purposeAltered biomechanics or bone fragility or both contribute to spine instrumentation failure. Although revision surgery is frequently required, minimally invasive alternatives may be feasible. We report the largest to-date series of percutaneous fluoroscopically guided vertebral cement augmentation procedures to address feasibility, safety, results and a variety of spinal instrumentation failure conditions. MATERIALS AND

methodsA consecutive series of 31 fluoroscopically guided vertebral augmentation procedures in 29 patients were performed to address screw loosening (42 screws), cage subsidence (7 cages), and fracture within (12 cases) or adjacent to (11 cases) the instrumented segment. Instrumentation failure was deemed clinically relevant when resulting in pain or jeopardizing spinal biomechanical stability. The main study end point was the rate of revision surgery avoidance; feasibility and safety were assessed by prospective recording of periprocedural technical and clinical complications; and clinical effect was measured at 1 month with the Patient Global Impression of Change score.

resultsAll except 1 procedure was technically feasible. No periprocedural complications occurred. Clinical and radiologic follow-up was available in 28 patients (median, 16 months) and 30 procedures. Revision surgery was avoided in 23/28 (82%) patients, and a global clinical benefit (Patient Global Impression of Change, 5-7) was reported in 26/30 (87%) cases at 1-month follow-up, while no substantial change (Patient Global Impression of Change, 4) was reported in 3/30 (10%), and worsening status (Patient Global Impression of Change, 3), in 1/30 (3%).

conclusionsOur experience supports the feasibility of percutaneous vertebral augmentation in the treatment of several clinically relevant spinal instrumentation failure conditions, with excellent safety and efficacy profiles, both in avoidance of revision surgery and for pain palliation.

Indexed as

AgedBone CementsEquipment FailureFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedMinimally Invasive Surgical ProceduresNeurosurgical ProceduresProspective StudiesReoperationVertebroplastyBone Cements

Identifiers

PMID30213804
PMCPMC7410744

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.