ArticleJournal of pain research2025
Unilateral Percutaneous Curved Kyphoplasty versus Bilateral Percutaneous Kyphoplasty for the Treatment of Single-Level Osteoporotic Vertebral Compression Fractures: A Retrospective Comparative Study.
Article in Journal of pain research, 2025. 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: This study compared unilateral percutaneous curved kyphoplasty (PCK) and bilateral percutaneous kyphoplasty (PKP) for treating single-level osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures (OVCFs). Methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted on patients with single-level OVCF treated with either unilateral PCK or bilateral PKP between September 2023 and December 2024. Clinical and radiographic evaluations were performed preoperatively and postoperatively at 1 day, 1, 3, 6 months, and at the latest available follow-up. The final data analysis was conducted in July 2025. Given the study period, the latest follow-up time varied among patients, ranging from 6 to 12 months. The median follow-up time for the entire cohort was 12 months. Parameters assessed included operative time, blood loss, fluoroscopy frequency, cement volume, cement leakage, visual analogue scale (VAS) scores, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), vertebral height restoration, Cobb angle correction, and complication rates. Results: The PCK group showed superior intraoperative outcomes, including shorter operative time (37.44 ± 6.52 min vs 44.56 ± 7.74 min), reduced blood loss (8.78 ± 2.91 mL vs 12.81 ± 2.51 mL), fewer fluoroscopic exposures (15.37 ± 2.09 vs 21.79 ± 2.46), and lower cement volume (4.62 ± 0.60 mL vs 5.14 ± 0.69 mL). Cement leakage was significantly less frequent with PCK (4.9% vs 18.8%). Both techniques achieved equivalent long-term clinical results, with no significant differences in VAS scores, ODI scores, vertebral height maintenance, Cobb angle correction, or refracture rates at final follow-up. No major complications occurred in either group. Conclusion: In this retrospective cohort, with a median follow-up of 12 months, unilateral PCK achieved clinical outcomes comparable to those of bilateral PKP. Furthermore, PCK was associated with superior intraoperative efficiency and reduced radiation exposure. These results suggest that PCK may be a viable and advantageous surgical alternative; however, these findings warrant validation in future randomised controlled trials.
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.