ArticleBMC neurology2020
Clinical efficacy and safety of bone cement combined with radiofrequency ablation in the treatment of spinal metastases.
Article in BMC neurology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 24 citations in OpenAlex.
- Percutaneous cryoablation in the management of spinal metastases: a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of neuro-oncology · 2025Pooled it
- Radiofrequency Ablation of Painful Spinal Metastasis: A Systematic Review.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2025Pooled it
- Interventional Radiology in the Management of Breast Cancer: Current Role and Future Directions.Cardiovascular and interventional radiology · 2026Review
- Ablative Techniques for the Management of Osseous Spine Metastases: A Narrative Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Comparison of Clinical Outcomes Between Fluoroscopic and Computer Tomographic Guidance in Concurrent Use of Radiofrequency Ablation and Vertebral Augmentation in Spinal Metastases: A Scoping Review.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Safety, Efficacy, and Adjacent-level Fracture Risk Following Vertebral Augmentation and Radiofrequency Ablation for the Treatment of Spine Metastases in Patients with Cancer.Radiology. Imaging cancer · 2025Article
- Review
- Combination radiofrequency ablation and vertebral cement augmentation for spinal metastatic tumors: A systematic review and meta-analysis of safety and treatment outcomes.North American Spine Society journal · 2024Review
- Microwave ablation combined with vertebral augmentation under real-time temperature monitoring for the treatment of painful spinal osteogenic metastases.BMC neurology · 2023Article
- Radiofrequency Ablation in Vertebral Body Metastasis with and without Percutaneous Cement Augmentation: A Systematic Review Addressing the Need for SPINE Stability Evaluation.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Interventional Procedures for Vertebral Diseases: Spinal Tumor Ablation, Vertebral Augmentation, and Basivertebral Nerve Ablation-A Scoping Review.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
5 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundTo investigate the clinical efficacy and safety of bone cement combined with radiofrequency ablation (RFA) in the treatment of spinal metastases.
methodsThe medical records of patients with spinal metastatic tumor admitted to our hospital from January 2016 to December 2018 were retrospectively analyzed. Based on different surgical methods, the patients were divided into groups A (treated with RFA combined with bone cement) and B (treated with bone cement only). Group A included 35 patients with 47 segments of diseased vertebral bodies. Group B consisted of 52 patients with 78 vertebral segments. Pain, quality of life score, vertebra height, bone cement leakage, postoperative tumor recurrence, and complications were assessed 3 days and 1 and 6 months after surgery.
resultsAll the patients had smooth operation without paraplegia, spinal cord injury, and perioperative death. Visual analogue scales (VAS) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores of the two groups significantly improved 3 days and 1 month after surgery compared with those before surgery (P < 0.05), but no significant difference was observed between the two groups (P > 0.05). Six months after surgery, the VAS and ODI scores of patients in group A were lower than those in group B, with statistically significant differences (P < 0.05). The postoperative vertebral body height of the two groups significantly increased compared with that before surgery, and the difference was statistically significant (P < 0.05). Meanwhile, no significant difference was observed between the two groups (P > 0.05). Postoperative bone cement permeability in group A was 6.4%, and postoperative tumor recurrence rate was 11.4%. The permeability of bone cement in group B was 20.5%, and the tumor recurrence rate was 30.8%. The bone cement permeability and tumor recurrence rate in group A were lower than those in group B, with statistically significant differences (P < 0.05).
conclusionsBone cement combined with RFA for the treatment of spinal metastases can achieve good efficacy, desirable analgesic effect, low incidence of complications, small surgical trauma, and high safety. The proposed method has the value of clinical popularization and application.
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.