ArticleWorld journal of clinical cases2021
Outcomes of different minimally invasive surgical treatments for vertebral compression fractures: An observational study.
Article in World journal of clinical cases, 2021. 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.
- Mechanical augmentation for vertebral compression fractures: A scoping review.Interventional pain medicine · 2026Review
- Molecular Mechanisms and Therapeutic Targets for Pain Following Osteoporotic Vertebral Fractures.Journal of pain research · 2026Review
- Gender-Related Issues in the Management of Low-Back Pain: A Current Concepts Review.Clinics and practice · 2023Review
- Innovative minimally invasive implants for osteoporosis vertebral compression fractures.Frontiers in medicine · 2023Review
- Comment on "Outcomes of different minimally invasive surgical treatments for vertebral compression fractures: An observational study".World journal of clinical cases · 2022Article
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundOsteoporosis with vertebral compression fractures is increasingly common in the elderly population. Cement augmentation is one of the effective surgical treatments for these patients. Currently, there are several different types of cement augmentation treatments. No studies have compared the safety and efficacy of different cement augmentation types for the treatment of such fractures; thus, we retrospectively compared vertebroplasty, balloon kyphoplasty, and kyphoplasty with SpineJack or an intravertebral expandable pillar.
aimTo compare the postoperative safety and efficacy of each surgical intervention in treating vertebral compression fractures.
methodsWe retrospectively analyzed 354 patients with acute vertebral compression fractures, defined as signal changes in the T1 weighted magnetic resonance imaging, and randomly divided the patients into five groups. Their visual analog scale scores for pain, kyphotic angle, average body height, rate of cement leakage, and occurrence of adjacent vertebral compression fractures were followed for 1 year. One-way analysis of variance, the post hoc Bonferroni test, and Fisher exact probability test were used for statistical analyses.
resultsAll pain scores significantly improved 12 mo postoperatively; however, there was no significant difference between the groups (
conclusionKyphoplasty with SpineJack has good outcomes in kyphotic angle reduction and body height restoration. Vertebroplasty has the highest cement leakage rate and adjacent compression fracture occurrence.
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.