ReviewOrthopaedic surgery2026
Technical Limitations and Implant Developments in Percutaneous Kyphoplasty for Osteoporotic Vertebral Compression Fractures.
Review in Orthopaedic surgery, 2026. 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.
- Technical Limitations and Implant Developments in Percutaneous Kyphoplasty for Osteoporotic Vertebral Compression Fractures.Orthopaedic surgery · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
As a core minimally invasive technique for treating osteoporotic vertebral compression fracture (OVCF), percutaneous kyphoplasty (PKP) is widely employed clinically but continues to face significant technical challenges. These include uneven cement distribution, loss of vertebral height reduction, cement leakage, and adjacent vertebral re-fractures. To overcome these limitations, multi-dimensional technical refinements have emerged in recent years: innovations in surgical access and propping instruments (e.g., percutaneous curved kyphoplasty (PCKP), Sky system) optimize cement spatial distribution; intravertebral support implants (e.g., SpineJack, vertebral body stenting [VBS], stabilizing augmented Intervertebral Force [SAIF]) provide sustained mechanical support and mitigate loss of reduction height; and cement flow control techniques (e.g., Bone-filled bag systems, Kiva system), coupled with the use of high-viscosity bone cement, have significantly reduced leakage risks. This paper systematically reviews recent advancements in propping technology and intravertebral implants addressing these PKP challenges, aiming to provide an evidence-based foundation for optimizing the minimally invasive management of OVCF. Future development requires bioactive bone cements (e.g., magnesium/calcium phosphate-based composites) integrated with precise personalized design to advance PKP toward facilitating physiological bone remodeling.
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.