ArticleEuropean radiology2022
Reinforced cementoplasty for pelvic tumour lesions and pelvic traumatic fractures: preliminary experience.
Article in European radiology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- A mechanobiological hypothesis on bone cement-induced progression of bone metastases.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2026Article
- Long-term outcome following vertebroplasty or bone cementoplasty in multiple myeloma patients.Neuroradiology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesPelvic bone pathological lesions and traumatic fractures are a considerable source of pain and disability. In this study, we sought to evaluate the effectiveness of reinforced cementoplasty (RC) in painful and unstable lesions involving the pelvic bone in terms of pain relief and functional recovery.
methodsAll patients with neoplastic lesion or pelvic fracture for whom a pelvic bone RC was carried out between November 2013 and October 2017 were included in our study. All patients who failed the medical management, patients unsuitable for surgery, and patients with unstable osteolytic lesions were eligible to RC. Clinical outcome was evaluated with a 1-month and 6-month post-procedure follow-up. The primary endpoint was local pain relief measured by the visual analogue scale (VAS).
resultsTwenty-two patients (18 females, 4 males; mean age of 65.4 ± 13.3 years [range 38-80]) presenting with painful and unstable pelvic lesions were treated by RC during the study period. Among the 22 patients, 8 patients presented with unstable pelvic fractures (3 patients with iliac crest fracture, 3 with sacral fractures, and the remaining 2 with peri-acetabular fractures). No procedure-related complications were recorded. All patients had significant pain relief and functional improvement at 1 month. One patient (4.5%) had suffered a secondary fracture due to local tumour progression.
conclusionsReinforced cementoplasty is an original minimally invasive technique that may help in providing pain relief and effective bone stability for neoplastic and traumatic lesions involving the pelvic bone. KEY POINTS: • Reinforced cementoplasty is feasible in both traumatic fractures and tumoural bone lesions of the pelvis. • Reinforced cementoplasty for pelvic bone lesions provides pain relief and functional recovery. • Recurrence of pelvic bone fracture was observed in 4.5% of the cases in our series.
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.