ReviewBrain & spine2023
When spinal instrumentation revision is not an option: Salvage vertebral augmentation with polymethylmethacrylate for mechanical complications: A systematic review.
Review in Brain & spine, 2023. 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, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cement discoplasty for degenerative low back pain: a delphi consensus survey of expert opinion.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2026Article
- A clinically applicable energy-based approach for evaluating bone strength.Bone & joint research · 2026Article
- Clinical outcomes of short-segment cement-augmented pedicle screw fixation combined with vertebroplasty in patients with stage III Kummell's disease.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2026Article
- Motion attenuation surgery in the degenerative lumbar spine: Is cement discoplasty a safe and effective option?Brain & spine · 2025Article
- An Extended Follow-up of Spinal Instrumentation Rescue with Cement Augmentation.AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology · 2024Article
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 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Intoduction: Mechanical complications from spinal fusion including implant loosening or junctional failure result in poor outcomes, particularly in osteoporotic patients. While the use of percutaneous vertebral augmentation with polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) has been studied for augmentation of junctional levels to offset against kyphosis and failure, its deployment around existing loose screws or in failing surrounding bone as a salvage percutaneous procedure has been described in small case series and merits review. Research Question: How effective and safe is the use of PMMA as a salvage procedure for mechanical complications in failed spinal fusion?. Materials and Methods: Systematic search of online databases for clinical studies using this technique. Results: 11 studies were identified, only consisting of two case reports and nine case series. Consistent improvements were observed in pre- to post-operative VAS and with sustained improvements at final follow-up. The extra- or para-pedicular approach was the most frequent access trajectory. Most studies cited difficulties with visibility on fluoroscopy, using navigation or oblique views as a solution for this. Discussion and Conclusions: Percutaneous cementation at a failing screw-bone interface stabilises further micromotion with reductions in back pain. This rarely used technique is manifested by a low but increasing number of reported cases. The technique warrants further evaluation and is best performed within a multidisciplinary setting at a specialist centre. Notwithstanding that underlying pathology may not be addressed, awareness of this technique may allow an effective and safe salvage solution with minimal morbidity for older sicker patients.
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.