ArticleAsian spine journal2025
Clinical outcome of vertebroplasty alone versus short-segment posterior instrumentation with vertebroplasty in osteoporotic vertebral fracture: a propensity-score-matched analysis.
Article in Asian spine journal, 2025. 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.
- Comparative Radiologic Outcomes of Romosozumab and Teriparatide in Osteoporotic Vertebral Fractures.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
STUDY
designRetrospective cohort study with propensity-score-matched analysis. PURPOSE: To compare the efficacy of vertebroplasty (VP) versus short-segment posterior instrumentation (SS) with VP in patients with osteoporotic vertebral fractures (OVFs). OVERVIEW OF LITERATURE: OVFs significantly affect the aging population, causing pain, reduced mobility, and increased dependence. Treatment guidelines vary, and a consensus on the most effective approach remains unclear. To the best of our knowledge, no previous report focused on the efficacy comparison of VP alone versus SS with VP.
methodsThe study included patients with OVFs undergoing VP with or without SS from 2017 to 2021. Baseline demographic and patient-reported outcome scores, including Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and European Quality-of-Life-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D), were collected preoperatively and 1 year postoperatively. Radiographic outcomes, including Cobb angle, sagittal angle reduction, and kyphotic progression, were assessed. Perioperative data were gathered. Propensity-score matching was conducted to compare both groups after adjusting for baseline characteristics.
resultsThis study included 60 patients. The subsequent analyses included 19 patients in both the SS+VP group and the VP groups after matching patient cohorts across various covariates. The SS+VP group demonstrated better ODI (30.38±17.12 vs. 49.68±19.43, p=0.0025) and EQ-5D scores (0.80±0.19 vs. 0.6±0.31, p=0.0018) at 1 year postoperative. Sagittal angle correction was higher in the SS+VP group (10.63°±6.34° vs. 5.74°±5.91°, p=0.0188). The SS+VP group exhibited higher blood loss and longer operative time. Perioperative complications, kyphotic progression, adjacent fractures, and reoperation rates were similar between the two groups.
conclusionsSS with VP generated superior patient-reported outcomes and sagittal angle correction for OVFs when evaluated one year postoperatively compared to VP alone. Perioperative complications, kyphotic progression, adjacent fractures, and reoperation rates were similar despite increased blood loss and extended operative time.
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.