ArticleBMC musculoskeletal disorders2025
Continuity and volume of bone cement and anti osteoporosis treatment were guarantee of good clinical outcomes for percutaneous vertebroplasty: a multicenter study.
Article in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 2025. 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.
- The Prevalence and Risk Factors of Residual Back Pain After Vertebroplasty for Osteoporotic Vertebral Compression Fractures: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Orthopaedic surgery · 2025Pooled it
- 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAs the most prevalent fragility fracture caused by osteoporosis, increasing attention was paid to vertebral compression fractures (VCF) day by day. Percutaneous vertebroplasty (PVP) had unique advantages in treatment of VCF and was used widely. However, there were still part patients suffering from residual or unrelieved pain after the surgery. The purpose of our study was to identified the associated factors for good clinical outcomes and provide evidence for surgical strategy. MATERIAL AND
methods186 patients who underwent PVP from January 2021 to January 2023 were reviewed retrospectively in the study. The patients were divided into two groups according to clinical outcomes. Preoperative general data and surgical data were collected for statistical analysis. Multivariate logistic regression analysis and the receiver operating characteristic curve were used to identify the associated factors with good clinical outcomes.
resultsThere were statistically significant differences between two groups in volume of bone cement (p = 0.012), standardized treatment for osteoporosis (p = 0.004) and bone cement continuity (p = 0.006). The associated factors with good clinical outcomes after PVP were continuous bone cement (OR = 2.237, 95% CI = 1.191-4.201, p = 0.012), standardized treatment for osteoporosis (OR = 2.105, 95% CI = 1.089-4.068, p = 0.027) and volume of bone cement > 5.5 ml (OR = 1.271, 95% CI = 1.023-1.579, p = 0.030).
conclusionPVP effectively released the back pain of patients and was worthy of promotion. However, postoperative residual pain was an important factor that reduced the clinical outcomes. Continuous bone cement and standardized treatment for osteoporosis were guarantee of good clinical outcomes for PVP and injected bone cement > 5.5 ml might be a guarantee.
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.