Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31552160›Full record

ReviewGlobal spine journal2019

Surgical Trend Analysis for Use of Cement Augmented Pedicle Screws in Osteoporosis of Spine: A Systematic Review (2000-2017).

Vishwajeet Singh, Rajat Mahajan, Kalidutta Das, Harvinder Singh Chhabra, Tarush Rustagi

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Global spine journal, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed
5.9field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
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

25 citing papers in PubMed, 56 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Development and validation of machine learning models for distal instrumentation-related problems in patients with degenerative lumbar scoliosis based on preoperative CT and MRI.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Vishwajeet SinghIndian Spinal Injuries Center, New Delhi, India.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6570-1292
Rajat MahajanIndian Spinal Injuries Center, New Delhi, India.
Kalidutta DasIndian Spinal Injuries Center, New Delhi, India.
Harvinder Singh ChhabraIndian Spinal Injuries Center, New Delhi, India.
Tarush RustagiIndian Spinal Injuries Center, New Delhi, India.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9950-3780
Indian Spinal Injuries Centre · IN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

STUDY

designSystematic review.

objectives(1) Study indications for cement-augmented pedicle screws (CAPS) in patients with osteoporosis. Have they changed over the years (2000-2017)? Are there any differences in usage of CAPS based on the geographical region? (2) What were the outcome of the studies? (3) What are the complications associated with this technique?

methodsElectronic database and reference list of desired articles were searched from the database (2000-2017). Articles were selected discussing indications, clinical and radiological outcomes, and complications in cases of preexistent osteoporosis treated surgically using CAPS.

resultsSeventeen studies were identified; 3 were comparative studies and had a control arm (cemented vs noncemented screws). Most studies originated from Europe (10) or Asia (7). Painful vertebral fracture with or without neurological deficit, Kummell's lesion, deformity and failure to respond to conservative treatment are the common indications for cement augmentation. Visual analogue scale score was the most commonly used to assess pain and average improvement after surgery was 6.1. Average improvement in kyphosis was 13.21° and average loss of correction at the end of the study was 3°. Cement leak was the most common complication observed and pulmonary cement embolism was the most dreaded complication. Nevertheless, majority of cement leaks discussed in studies were asymptomatic.

conclusionCAPS are being increasingly used in osteoporotic spine. Pain scores, functional quality of life, and neurological function indices were studied. CAPS improved anchorage in osteoporotic vertebra and helped improve/maintain clinical and radiological improvement. Common risks of cement leak were observed.

Indexed as

cementosteoporosisPMMAvertebral fracture

Identifiers

PMID31552160
PMCPMC6745638
OpenAlexW2893018007

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.