ArticleSkeletal radiology2020
Percutaneous reinforced osteoplasty for long bone metastases: a feasibility study.
Article in Skeletal radiology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Interventional Radiology in the Treatment of Musculoskeletal Tumours.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2026Review
- Different polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) reinforcement strategies for long bone osteoplasty procedures: a controlled laboratory comparison using the 4-point bending test.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2024Article
- Effectiveness of RF ablation and cementoplasty in enhancing functional capacity in pelvic malignant bone metastases.European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie · 2024Article
- Percutaneous-Reinforced Osteoplasty: A Review of Emerging Treatment Strategies for Bone Interventions.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Review
- Interventional Radiology in the Management of Metastases and Bone Tumors.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveWhile percutaneous osteoplasty is common for the treatment of vertebral fractures, low strength of fixation remains a major challenge for use in metastatic weight-bearing bones. With stent, wire, and cement augmentation, this study explores the feasibility of percutaneous reinforced osteoplasty for use in correcting long bone fractures. MATERIALS AND
methodsFifteen explanted swine femora were randomly assigned into three groups. Group 1 (n = 5) was native (intact) bones without any intervention (control), group 2 (n = 5) received cementoplasty, and group 3 (n = 5) received stent and wire scaffolding ("rebar") in addition to cementoplasty. All treatment procedures were performed under fluoroscopic guidance. Mechanical strength of fracture fixation was quantified by peak load to failure, stiffness, work done to fracture, and fatigue testing with four-point bend test.
resultsPercutaneous osteoplasty with or without reinforcement was successfully achieved in all specimens. The respective peak load at failure, flexural stiffness, and work done to fracture (mean ± SEM) for group 1 was 2245 ± 168 N, 14.77 ± 1.3 Nm/degree, and 4854 ± 541 Nmm; group 2 was 468 ± 81 N, 3.9 ± 0.5 Nm/degree, and 401 ± 56 Nmm; and group 3 was 594 ± 90 N, 4.42 ± 0.4 Nm/degree, and 522 ± 54 Nmm. The mean cyclic displacement for groups 1, 2, and 3 were 0.15, 0.58, and 0.48 mm, respectively, at 220-240 N loading.
conclusionsWhile percutaneous reinforced osteoplasty with stent, wire, and cement augmentation resulted in improved mechanical strength in restored bones, it did not differ significantly from specimens that underwent exclusive cementoplasty. With the improvement of fracture strength, the concept may be applicable for prevention or treatment of pathological 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.