ArticleKorean journal of neurotrauma2020
Gelfoam Embolization Technique to Prevent Bone Cement Leakage during Percutaneous Vertebroplasty: Comparative Study of Gelfoam only vs. Gelfoam with Venography.
Article in Korean journal of neurotrauma, 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, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- A Nomogram to Predict Intra-Spinal Canal Cement Leakage Among Elderly Patients with Spine Metastases: An Internal-Validated Model.Clinical interventions in aging · 2021Trial
- Combination of mesenchymal stem cell sheet with poly-caprolactone nanofibrous mat and Gelfoam increased osteogenesis capacity in rat calvarial defect.BioImpacts : BI · 2025Article
- Let us settle the controversy-gelfoam is a safe intravascular embolic agent.The British journal of radiology · 2024Article
- Hemostatic Agents in Orthopedic Surgery.HSS journal : the musculoskeletal journal of Hospital for Special Surgery · 2023Review
- Cement venogram as a harbinger of methacrylate embolism after kyphoplasty: A case series.SAGE open medical case reports · 2021Article
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivePercutaneous vertebroplasty (VP) has been used for the safe treatment of osteoporotic compression fracture. However, cement leakage is the most common complication. To reduce the leakage of bone cement, we did the gelfoam embolization during VP. The purpose of this study is to compare the safety and feasibility of different two gelfoam embolization technique during VP.
methodsTotal 127 patients (146 level) who had the thoracolumbar osteoporotic compression fracture were enrolled. Group A was treated by gelfoam-only technique and, Group B was treated by gelfoam with venography technique. We compared the incidence of bone cement leakage between two groups using post-operative computed tomography scan and X-ray.
resultsSeventy-four patients (81 levels) were treated with gelfoam-only technique (A), and 53 patients (65 levels) were treated with gelfoam with venography technique (B). There were 22 leakages on group A, and 19 leakages on group B. There was no statistical significant difference between two groups (Chi-square test,
conclusionComplication induced by the bone cement leakage are the most careful point during VP. Gelfoam embolization with venography is very easy and safe method. Gelfoam with venography technique could make lower the incidence of cement leakage to spinal canal.
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.