Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36267211›Full record

ArticleOrthopedic reviews2022

Three generations of treatments for osteoporotic vertebral fractures: what is the evidence?

Luigi Aurelio Nasto, Eugenio Jannelli, Valerio Cipolloni, Luca Piccone, Alessandro Cattolico, Alessandro Santagada, Charlotte Pripp, Alfredo Schiavone Panni, Enrico Pola

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Orthopedic reviews, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 30% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. 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

9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Luigi Aurelio NastoDepartment of Orthopaedics, Università degli Studi della Campania "Luigi Vanvitelli", via de Crecchio 4, 80138 Naples, Italy.
Eugenio JannelliDepartment of Orthopaedics, Università degli Studi della Campania "Luigi Vanvitelli", via de Crecchio 4, 80138 Naples, Italy.
Valerio CipolloniSpine Division, Department of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, A. Gemelli University Hospital, Catholic University of Rome, Rome 00168, Italy.
Luca PicconeSpine Division, Department of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, A. Gemelli University Hospital, Catholic University of Rome, Rome 00168, Italy.
Alessandro CattolicoDepartment of Orthopaedics, Università degli Studi della Campania "Luigi Vanvitelli", via de Crecchio 4, 80138 Naples, Italy.
Alessandro SantagadaSpine Division, Department of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, A. Gemelli University Hospital, Catholic University of Rome, Rome 00168, Italy.
Charlotte PrippSpine Division, Department of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, A. Gemelli University Hospital, Catholic University of Rome, Rome 00168, Italy.
Alfredo Schiavone PanniDepartment of Orthopaedics, Università degli Studi della Campania "Luigi Vanvitelli", via de Crecchio 4, 80138 Naples, Italy.
Enrico PolaDepartment of Orthopaedics, Università degli Studi della Campania "Luigi Vanvitelli", via de Crecchio 4, 80138 Naples, Italy.
University of Campania "Luigi Vanvitelli" · ITAgostino Gemelli University Polyclinic · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The management of vertebral compression fractures (VCFs) is based on conservative treatment and minimally invasive vertebral augmentation procedures. However, the role of vertebral augmentation is now being questioned by clinical trials and extensive studies. The aim of this review is to report the most relevant evidences on effectiveness, safety, and indications of the currently available vertebral augmentation techniques. Conservative treatment with bracing is effective in reducing acute but it has no effect on segmental kyphosis progression and pseudoarthrosis can occur. Percutaneous vertebroplasty (PV) was the first vertebral augmentation technique to be proposed for the treatment of VCFs. Two blinded and randomized clinical trials compared PV to a sham procedure and no significant differences in terms of efficacy were reported. More recent studies have suggested that PV can still benefit patients with acute VCFs and severe pain at onset. Balloon kyphoplasty (BK) was developed to improve the segmental alignment restoring the height of collapsed vertebrae. BK allows similar pain relief and disability improvement, as well as greater kyphosis correction compared to PV, moreover BKP seems to reduce cement leakage. Vertebral body stenting (VBS) and the KIVA system are third generation techniques of vertebral augmentation. VBS aims to increase the effectiveness in restoring the segmental alignment, while the KIVA system can prevent cement leakage. These techniques are effective and safe, even if their superiority to BK has yet to be proven by studies with a high level of evidence.

Indexed as

KIVAKyphoplastyOsteoporosisReviewVertebral augmentationVertebral body stentingVertebral compression fracturesVertebroplasty

Identifiers

PMID36267211
PMCPMC9568420
OpenAlexW4304806508

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.