ArticleScience progress
Comparative study between unilateral and bilateral extrapedicular approaches for osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures: A retrospective study.
Article in Science progress. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Unilateral extrapedicular versus unilateral and bilateral transpedicular approaches in percutaneous vertebral augmentation for osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures: A meta-analysis.Joint diseases and related surgery · 2026Pooled it
- Safety and efficacy studies of cross-unilateral, sequential unilateral, and bilateral percutaneous kyphoplasty for double-adjacent thoracolumbar osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures.European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivePercutaneous vertebroplasty (PVP) is a primary treatment for osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures (OVCF). Historically, surgeons preferred a bilateral approach for PVP; however, this approach may impose greater financial strain on patients. This retrospective study examines the efficacy of the unilateral approach compared to the bilateral approach.
methodsA total of193 patients were categorized into Group A (unilaterally extrapedicular approach) and Group B (bilateral approach) based on the operative method. Efficacy was evaluated using perioperative indicators, follow-up results, and imaging evaluation results.
resultsOut of the 193 patients involved, 169 were eligible for analysis. All patients completed follow-up visits lasting 49-70 months. Compared to Group B, Group A exhibited significantly shorter operation time, puncture duration, amount of bone cement injected, and number of X-ray fluoroscopies (
conclusionsThis technique holds the potential for accelerated patient rehabilitation and reduced hospitalization expenses, presenting a promising treatment option for OVCF 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.