SynthesisBMC musculoskeletal disorders2026
Efficacy and safety of curved vertebroplasty in osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 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.
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
objectiveCurved vertebroplasty (CVP), including percutaneous curved vertebroplasty (PCVP) and percutaneous curved kyphoplasty (PCKP), represents a novel surgical modality in recent years for osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures (OVCFs). Although numerous clinical studies have reported its safety and efficacy, meta-analyses remain necessary to further validate the robustness of this evidence.
methodsBased on the PRISMA guidelines, we conducted a comprehensive literature search of four databases—PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science—for all relevant studies published from their inception to April 2025. Two investigators independently conducted a quality assessment, extracted the data, and performed all statistical analyses. In case of disagreement, a third investigator adjudicated the risk of bias assessment.
resultsA total of nine studies involving 814 patients with OVCFs were included, comprising five randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and four retrospective cohort studies (RCS). Among these, two RCTs and all RCS investigated PCVP, while the remaining three RCTs evaluated PCKP. The meta-analysis showed that compared with Percutaneous vertebral augmentation (PVA), CVP had comparable effects in terms of visual analog scale (VAS), Oswestry disability index (ODI), and improvement of the COBB angle, but significantly improved the surgical efficiency. Subgroup analysis revealed that PCVP and PCKP could consistently reduce the operation time (MD = -9.59, 95% CI: -18.93, -0.24; MD = -14.00, 95% CI: -22.40, -5.60) and the number of intraoperative fluoroscopy (MD = -5.89, 95% CI: -9.48, -2.29; MD = -26.32, 95% CI: -45.95, -6.68). However, PCVP could reduce the risk of bone cement leakage and the volume of bone cement (OR = 0.41, 95% CI: 0.24, 0.70; MD = -1.40, 95% CI: -2.29, 0.51).
conclusionsCVP is a feasible option for treating patients with OVCFs, which could effectively enhance surgical efficiency without reducing clinical efficacy. However, its effectiveness and long-term advantages in a broader population still need to be further verified.
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.