ReviewFrontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology2023
Advances in materials used for minimally invasive treatment of vertebral compression fractures.
Review in Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology, 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.
- Hyaluronic Acid in Spinal Disorders: A Narrative Review of Hot Spots and Research Perspectives.Iranian journal of medical sciences · 2026Review
- Recent advances in biomaterials for bone regeneration: Bridging innovation and clinical translation.Materials today. Bio · 2026Review
- The Design and Development of an Injectable Thermoresponsive Hydrogel for Controlled Simvastatin Release in Bone Repair Applications.Gels (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- The Effects of Calcium Phosphate Bone Cement Preparation Parameters on Injectability and Compressive Strength for Minimally Invasive Surgery.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Simultaneous minimally invasive surgery improves outcomes and reduces complications in elderly with combined osteoporotic fractures.American journal of translational research · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Vertebral compression fractures are becoming increasingly common with aging of the population; minimally invasive materials play an essential role in treating these fractures. However, the unacceptable processing-performance relationships of materials and their poor osteoinductive performance have limited their clinical application. In this review, we describe the advances in materials used for minimally invasive treatment of vertebral compression fractures and enumerate the types of bone cement commonly used in current practice. We also discuss the limitations of the materials themselves, and summarize the approaches for improving the characteristics of bone cement. Finally, we review the types and clinical efficacy of new vertebral implants. This review may provide valuable insights into newer strategies and methods for future research; it may also improve understanding on the application of minimally invasive materials for the treatment of vertebral compression fractures.
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.