ArticleOrthopadie (Heidelberg, Germany)2022
[Sacral fragility fractures: risk factors and outcomes after cement sacroplasty].
Article in Orthopadie (Heidelberg, Germany), 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, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- One-year mortality rates of fragility fractures of the pelvis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.EFORT open reviews · 2025Article
- Retrospective evaluation of percutaneous 3D-navigated screw fixation for fragility fractures of the sacrum: technical notes and four-year experience.Scientific reports · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe objective of the present study on patients with fragility fractures of the sacrum (FFS) was to assess existing risk factors and clinical outcomes after cement sacroplasty (CSP). PATIENTS AND
methods68 patients (64 women, 4 men) with previous FFS were followed up retrospectively. CT and MRI images were used to classify fractures according to Denis et al. and Rommens and Hofmann. Bone mineral content was determined by QCT in all patients. Concomitant diseases as well as central and peripheral fractures were recorded, considering the patient's medical history and X‑ray images. Vitamin D levels were also determined. If conservative therapy was unsuccessful, CSP was performed. The results were documented on the basis of pain development, physical independence, patient satisfaction, complication rate and mortality.
resultsThe age of the women in the study was Ø 83.2 (72-99) and that of the men Ø 77.8 (76-85) years. 42.4% had a Denis type 1, 4.2% a Denis type 2, 0% a Denis type 3, 43.3% a Denis type 1-2 and 10.1% a Denis type 1-2-3 fracture zone. FFP type II a to II c fractures were found in 88.2%, FFP type III c in 7.4% and FFP type IV b in 4.4%. Bilateral FFS were found in 68.8%. The average bone mineral content (BMC) was 35.4 (2-74) mg/ml, and the average vitamin D value was 8.8 (0-28) nmol/l. Other osteoporosis-associated fractures were found in around 50% of the patients. After CSP, patients showed a rapid and significant (p < 0.001) reduction in pain and sustained clinical improvement.
conclusionFFS fracture risk factors were found to be female gender, advanced age, existing osteoporosis and severe vitamin‑D deficiency. Patients with non-displaced FFS who could not be mobilised due to pain experienced sustained benefit from CSP.
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.