ArticleJournal of the Chinese Medical Association : JCMA2023
Posterior instrumentation for osteoporotic fractures in the thoracic or lumbar spine: Cement-augmented pedicle screws vs hybrid constructs.
Article in Journal of the Chinese Medical Association : JCMA, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
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 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCement-augmented pedicle screws (CPS) and hybrid construct (HC), consisting of pedicle screws and additional hooks, are common fixation methods for osteoporotic spine fracture. No study has compared surgical results of CPS and HC for treating osteoporotic spine fracture. The aim of the study was to compare surgical results using CPS or HC for osteoporotic fractures of the thoracic or lumbar spine.
methodsThis retrospective cohort study included 84 patients who received surgical treatment with CPS (n = 43) or HC (n = 41) for osteoporotic spine fractures from January 2011 to December 2015, with a mean follow-up of 67 months. Sixty-five patients with neurological deficits received long posterior instrumentation, short posterior decompression, and posterolateral fusion. The 19 patients without neurologic deficits received long posterior instrumentation without posterior decompression and fusion. Radiographic, clinical, and neurologic outcomes were evaluated.
resultsThe HC group had significantly shorter operative times (231 vs 258 minutes), greater blood loss (497 vs 427 mL), better immediate postoperative kyphosis reduction (10.6° vs 9.1°), and greater final reduction loss (9.8° vs 7.1°) than the CPS group. In both groups, significant loss of the kyphotic angle was apparent during follow-up. Improved ambulation after surgery occurred in 51.2% and 58.5% of patients in the CPS and HC groups, respectively. Neurologic function after surgery improved 0.5 and 0.7 grades in the CPS and HC groups, respectively. Implants failed in 2.3% and 2.4% of patients in the CPS and HC groups, respectively. The incidence of cement leakage from screw augmentation was 38.9%.
conclusionThe CPS and HC techniques for treating osteoporotic fractures of the thoracic or lumbar spine did not differ statistically in terms of improved radiologic and clinical outcomes, final neurologic and ambulatory function, or implant failure rates, making them equally comparable alternatives.
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.