ArticleAJNR. American journal of neuroradiology2024
An Extended Follow-up of Spinal Instrumentation Rescue with Cement Augmentation.
Article in AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology, 2024. 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.
- Numerical and Experimental Investigation of Parameters in Cement Delivery Through Spinal Implants.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
background and purposePercutaneous cement augmentation has been reported as an effective salvage procedure for frail patients with spinal instrumentation failure, such as screw loosening, hardware breakage, cage subsidence, and fractures within or adjacent to stabilized segments. Favorable results were reported during a median follow-up period of 16 months in a retrospective analysis of 31 consecutive procedures performed in 29 patients. In the present study, the long-term effectiveness of this treatment in avoiding or postponing revision surgery is reported. MATERIALS AND
methodsClinical and radiologic data of our original cohort of patients were retrospectively collected and reviewed to provide an extended follow-up assessment. The need for revision spinal surgery was assessed as the primary outcome, and the radiologic stability of the augmented spinal implants was considered as the secondary outcome.
resultsAn extended radiologic follow-up was available in 27/29 patients with an average of 50.9 months. Overall, 18 of 27 (66.7%) patients, originally candidates for revision surgery, avoided a surgical intervention after a cement augmentation rescue procedure. In the remaining patients, the average interval between the rescue cement augmentation and the revision surgery was 22.5 months. Implant mobilization occurred in 2/27 (7.4%) patients; rod breakage, in 1/27 (3.7%); a new fracture within or adjacent to the instrumented segment occurred in 4/27 (14.8%) patients; and screw loosening at rescued levels occurred in 5/27 (18.5%) patients.
conclusionsIn this cohort, cement augmentation rescue procedures were found to be effective in avoiding or postponing revision surgery during long-term follow-up.
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.