ReviewJournal of clinical orthopaedics and trauma2025
Comprehensive systematic-review and meta-analysis: Treatment outcomes of unipedicular vs bipedicular approaches in vertebroplasty and kyphoplasty for osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures.
Review in Journal of clinical orthopaedics and trauma, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Unilateral Versus Bilateral Percutaneous Kyphoplasty for Single-Level Thoracolumbar Osteoporotic Vertebral Compression Fractures: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- A lateral decubitus percutaneous vertebroplasty using a facet-joint-transgressing unipedicular trajectory in a hemiplegic patient: a case report with a position-trajectory-gravity coupling strategy.International journal of surgery case reports · 2026Article
- Effect of dominant cement distribution zone on pain relief after unipedicular percutaneous vertebroplasty.Frontiers in surgery · 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
Background: Vertebroplasty or kyphoplasty is a safe and effective procedure to treat persistent pain and correct deformity for early mobilisation in an osteoporotic vertebral compression fracture. However, there is conflicting evidence supporting the unipedicular or bipedicular approach in terms of the outcomes and complications with a recent increase in literature and no meta-analysis in this decade. This review is aimed at providing insight into the comparison between unipedicular and bipedicular approaches for making clinical decisions. Methods: Multiple databases were screened using the keywords: "kyphoplasty", "vertebroplasty", "unipedicular", "bipedicular", "osteoporotic fracture", and "compression fracture", and all the results were reviewed for inclusion of 20 articles and data analysis done to look for significant differences between the two approaches. The quality of the studies included is evaluated using MINORS criteria. This review is registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) with ID: CRD4202511004028. Results: We found no significant difference between the two groups in terms of patient-related outcomes (Visual Analogue scale and Oswestry Disability Index), radiological outcomes (kyphotic angle correction or vertebral height restoration), complications (cement leakage or adjacent vertebral fractures), fluoroscopy frequency with significantly less operative time in the unipedicular group. Conclusion: Vertebroplasty and kyphoplasty, irrespective of unipedicular or bipedicular approach, are effective procedures providing pain relief and adequate functional outcomes with comparable complications, with the unilateral approach taking less operative time. However, in a clinical setting, the approach of kyphoplasty or vertebroplasty should depend on a patient's condition, fracture type and symmetry, along with the levels affected.
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.