Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40342107›Full record

SynthesisNeurosurgical review2025

Percutaneous curved vertebroplasty versus unipedicular vertebroplasty for osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Ahmad Sharif, Karim Rizwan Nathani, Ryan Nguyen, Sarah Johnson, Sufyan Ibrahim, Emily Feng, Hassan Kobeissi, David Kallmes, Waleed Brinjikji, Brett Freedman and 1 more

Abstract readSystematic ReviewMeta-Analysis
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Neurosurgical review, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Cement leakage and post-operative outcomes after lower-versus higher-volume bone cement injection in percutaneous vertebroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2026
    Review
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Ahmad SharifMohammed Bin Rashid University of Medicine and Health Sciences, Dubai Health, Dubai, UAE.
Karim Rizwan NathaniMayo Clinic Neuro-Informatics Laboratory, Department of Neurologic Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
Ryan NguyenMayo Clinic Neuro-Informatics Laboratory, Department of Neurologic Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
Sarah JohnsonMayo Clinic Neuro-Informatics Laboratory, Department of Neurologic Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
Sufyan IbrahimMayo Clinic Neuro-Informatics Laboratory, Department of Neurologic Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
Emily FengMayo Clinic Neuro-Informatics Laboratory, Department of Neurologic Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
Hassan KobeissiDepartment of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
David KallmesDepartment of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
Waleed BrinjikjiDepartment of Neurologic Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
Brett FreedmanDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
Mohamad BydonMayo Clinic Neuro-Informatics Laboratory, Department of Neurologic Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA. bydon.mohamad@mayo.edu.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

To evaluate the use of percutaneous curved vertebroplasty (PCVP) and unipedicular vertebroplasty (UVP) for the treatment of osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures (OVCFs) through a systematic review and meta-analysis of the available literature. A systematic review of the scientific literature was conducted. Three randomized controlled trials and one retrospective study were included. Our outcomes of interest included injected cement volume, postoperative visual analog scale (VAS) scores, operative time, and cement leakage rate. Risk of bias tables were generated to determine the quality of each article. Four studies with 302 patients were included in the study. There were 142 (47.02%) patients in the PCVP group and 160 (52.98%) patients in the UVP group. PCVP was associated with significantly higher volumes of injected cement than UVP (MD: 1.20, CI: [0.27; 2.12], p = 0.01). Despite showing a strong trend in favor of PCVP, the meta-analysis did not report its superiority over UVP in terms of VAS (MD: -0.69, CI: [-1.66; 0.28], p = 0.16) and cement leakage rates (OR: 1.65, CI: [0.24; 1.75], p = 0.26), likely due to a few number of studies. Additionally, both the procedures had comparable mean operative times (MD: 0.20, CI: [-1.62; 2.03], p = 0.83), possibly due to overlapping procedure protocols. PCVP reported a significantly higher volume of the injected cement compared to UVP for the management of OVCFs. While trends favoring PCVP in postoperative outcomes were observed, the limited number of studies warrants further high-quality investigations, particularly randomized controlled trials with long-term outcomes, to establish the definitive superiority of either technique.

Indexed as

Fractures, CompressionOsteoporotic FracturesSpinal FracturesVertebroplastyBone CementsHumansTreatment OutcomeBone CementsCement distributionPercutaneous curved vertebroplastyUnipedicular vertebroplastyVertebral compression fracture

Identifiers

PMID40342107

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.