Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34523282›Full record

ArticleZhongguo xiu fu chong jian wai ke za zhi = Zhongguo xiufu chongjian waike zazhi = Chinese journal of reparative and reconstructive surgery2021

[Comparison of refracture risk between sandwich vertebrae and ordinary adjacent vertebrae].

Jin Liu, Jing Tang, Guo Chen, Zuchao Gu, Yu Zhang, Shenghui Yu, Hao Liu

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Zhongguo xiu fu chong jian wai ke za zhi = Zhongguo xiufu chongjian waike zazhi = Chinese journal of reparative and reconstructive surgery, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.2field-weighted citation impact, top 45% 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. [Epidemiological and clinical characteristics analysis of 681 cases of thoracolumbar osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures].Zhongguo xiu fu chong jian wai ke za zhi = Zhongguo xiufu chongjian waike zazhi = Chinese journal of reparative and reconstructive surgery · 2022
    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

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Jin LiuDepartment of Orthopedics, Chengdu First People's Hospital, Chengdu Sichuan, 610041, P.R.China.
Jing TangDepartment of Radiology, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu Sichuan, 610041, P.R.China.
Guo ChenDepartment of Orthopedics, Chengdu First People's Hospital, Chengdu Sichuan, 610041, P.R.China.
Zuchao GuDepartment of Orthopedics, Chengdu First People's Hospital, Chengdu Sichuan, 610041, P.R.China.
Yu ZhangDepartment of Orthopedics, Chengdu First People's Hospital, Chengdu Sichuan, 610041, P.R.China.
Shenghui YuDepartment of Orthopedics, Chengdu First People's Hospital, Chengdu Sichuan, 610041, P.R.China.
Hao LiuDepartment of Orthopedics, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu Sichuan, 610041, P.R.China.
First Affiliated Hospital of Chengdu Medical College · CNSichuan University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo compare the refracture risk between sandwich vertebrae and ordinary adjacent vertebrae, and to explore the risk factors related to refracture.

methodsRetrospective analysis was performed on the data of patients who received percutaneous vertebral augmentation (PVA) and formed sandwich vertebrae between April 2015 and October 2019. Of them, 115 patients were enrolled in the study. There were 27 males and 88 females with an average age of 73.9 years (range, 53-89 years). Univariate analysis was performed to analyzed the patients' general data, vertebral augmentation related indexes, and sandwich vertebrae related indexes. Survival analysis was performed for all untreated vertebrae at T

resultsThe 115 patients were followed up 12.6-65.9 months (mean, 36.2 months). Thirty-seven refractures involving 51 vertebral bodies occurred in 31 patients. The refracture rate of 27.0% (31/115) in patients with sandwich vertebrae was significantly higher than that of 15.2% (187/1228) in all patients who received PVA during the same period (

conclusionThe sandwich vertebrae has a higher risk of refracture when compared with the ordinary adjacent vertebrae, and its 1- and 5-year fracture-free probabilities are lower than those of the ordinary adjacent vertebrae. However, the 5-year fracture-free probability of sandwich vertebrae is still 0.87, so prophylactic enhancement is not recommended for all sandwich vertebrae. In addition, the sandwich vertebrae, thoracolumbar location, the number of the augmented vertebrae, and the unilateral puncture were important risk factors for refracture.

Indexed as

Fractures, CompressionOsteoporotic FracturesSpinal FracturesVertebroplastyAgedBone CementsFemaleHumansMaleRetrospective StudiesRisk FactorsSpineBone CementsCox’s proportional hazards regression modelOsteoporotic vertebral compression fracturerefracturesandwich vertebraevertebral augmentation

Identifiers

PMID34523282
PMCPMC8444128
OpenAlexW3199010989

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.