ArticleJournal of craniovertebral junction & spine
Who benefits more in osteoporotic fractures: Pedicle screw instrumentation or kyphoplasty for American Society of Anesthesiologists II/III patients?
Article in Journal of craniovertebral junction & spine. 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.
- Impact of laparoscopic repair on type III/IV giant paraesophageal hernias: a single-center experience.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2023Article
- Kyphoplasty versus percutaneous posterior instrumentation for osteoporotic vertebral fractures with posterior wall injury: a propensity score matched cohort study.Journal of spine surgery (Hong Kong) · 2021Article
- [Atraumatic fractures of the spine : Current strategies for diagnosis and treatment].Der Orthopade · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeOsteoporotc fractures with posterior wall injury are commonly treated with a pedicle srcrew instrumentation (PSI) or a ballonkyphoplasty (BKP). A predictor for complications for these patients is the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) class. Clinical results in ASA II/III patients who underwent BKP and PSI due to OF were evaluated to find the optimal treatment regimen. MATERIALS AND
methodsIn a retrospective study design, ASA Class II and III patients with OF type OF 2 and OF 3 according to the German Society of Orthopedics and Trauma Surgery classification who underwent surgery between 2011 and 2016 were enrolled. Perioperative data such as time of surgery, cement leakage, adjacent level fractures, screw loosening, wound infections, and segmental kyphosis correction were measured and a statistical analysis was conducted.
resultsNinety-nine patients met the inclusion criteria, 17 were classified as ASA II and 82 patients were classified as ASA III. Twenty-eight individuals were treated by PSI, whereas 71 underwent BKP. Not only a longer average operation (120 min) and hospital stay (21 days) were documented in the PSI group but also a better kyphosis correction (7.5°). In comparison, the BKP group required an average operation time of 35.5 min with a mean kyphosis correction of 2.1°. A statistical analysis revealed the surgical procedure and not the ASA class to be a relevant factor for complication and revision surgery.
conclusionsBKP is a safe and effective therapy including also fractures with posterior wall defects while PSI showed advantages in restoring the sagittal realignment but higher complication and revision risk.
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.