ReviewGeroScience2026
Spinal augmentation for vertebral body fractures in the elderly population.
Review in GeroScience, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Osteoporotic vertebral body fractures (OVBFs) are a highly prevalent pathology in the United States elderly population and can result in height loss and kyphotic deformity. While minimally invasive surgical techniques such as percutaneous kyphoplasty (PKP) and vertebroplasty (PVP) are commonly used, the efficacy of these techniques in older individuals is unknown. By examining the current body of evidence, we aim to assess the efficacy of these procedures within the context of appropriate grading of levels of evidence. This narrative review was conducted by searching multiple databases, including articles pertaining to vertebral augmentation procedures in elderly patients. Articles were then graded for levels of evidence, as outlined by the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine (OCEBM). Literature suggests that both procedures are generally safe in advanced-age patients, can reliably and sustainably decrease pain, and may be augmented with a multitude of adjunctive/perioperative care options. Such efforts include pedicle screw fixation with or without fusion, intraoperative lidocaine injection, erector spinae plane block, and rehabilitation efforts, in addition to the use of dexmedetomidine or the combined use of remimazolam besylate and sufentanil analgesics. The most dreaded complications of both procedures are bone cement extravasation and refracture, which likely occur more frequently after PKP. Both procedures have demonstrated efficacy in the domain of anatomical correction. PKP and PVP appear to safely restore quality of life in elderly patients, yet the finer details of each procedure must be explored with higher levels of evidence to account for potential differences in complication profiles and care options.
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.