ArticleJournal of orthopaedic surgery and research2025
Safety and feasibility of a smart assistive bone-cement injection system: a cadaveric study.
Article in Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research, 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.
- 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
Abstract
backgroundPercutaneous vertebral augmentation is an effective and commonly surgical treatment for osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures, but the problem of bone cement leakage still cannot be prevented. It has been reported that cement leakage occurs in approximately 20% of vertebroplasty procedures, with symptomatic manifestations reported in 1.6% of cases. Leakage of bone cement into the spinal canal increases the risk for spinal cord compression and nerve injury. The objective of this study was to introduce a smart assistive device specifically designed to facilitate both cement injection control and operator protection.
methodsTwo freshly frozen human cadaver specimens were used. The 2 cadaver specimens were divided according to injection method: manual (10 vertebrae, T8-L5); and motorized (10 vertebrae, T8-L5). Fluoroscopy time, cement time, volume injected, and cement distribution were recorded. Postoperative radiography and CT images were used to assess cement distribution in this cadaveric study.
resultsThe number of times intraoperative X-ray fluoroscopy was used for the manual injection group (6.7 ± 1.5) was significantly greater (P < 0.001) than that for the motorized injection group (4.1 ± 0.9). Mean cement time for the manual injection group (164.3 ± 18.7 s) was significantly greater (P < 0.001) than that for the motorized injection group (72.0 ± 7.2 s). There were no significant differences in the amount of cement injected in the manual vs. motorized injection group (5.2 ± 1.3 mL vs. 5.3 ± 1.0 mL; P = 0.878). Moreover, we found that leakage of cement outside the vertebral body was noted in 4 of 10 injected vertebrae (40%) in the manual injection group, whereas there was no bone cement leakage in the motorized injection group.
conclusionsThe system exhibited more precise control of the bone cement injection dosage and better cement distribution compared with traditional manual injection. In addition, the device provided remote activation, reducing the X-ray intake of the surgeon.
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.