SynthesisEuropean spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society2026
Transverse process-pedicle versus conventional transpedicular approach in percutaneous kyphoplasty for osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures: a systematic review and pilot meta-analysis.
Synthesis in 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. 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundCurrent evidence on the effect of the transverse process-pedicle approach (TPPA) in percutaneous kyphoplasty (PKP) remains limited. This study compares the safety and efficacy of TPPA versus conventional transpedicular approach (CTPA) in PKP for osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures (OVCFs).
methodsA systematic search was performed in PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and Scopus to identify prospective or retrospective studies comparing TPPA and CTPA in PKP. Studies published up to October 2025 were included. The meta-analysis was conducted using R version 4.5.1 with the meta package.
resultsSeven studies, including 1,014 OVCF patients, were analyzed. Compared with CTPA-PKP, TPPA-PKP results in lower radiation exposure (SMD = -1.53, 95% CI: -2.69 to -0.37), a reduced cement leakage rate (OR = 0.54, 95% CI: 0.37 to 0.77), and lower Oswestry Disability Index score (MD = -2.16, 95% CI: -3.64 to -0.69). TPPA-PKP may improve vertebral height restoration (MD = 0.45, 95% CI: 0.12 to 0.79) compared with CTPA-PKP, but the evidence is inconsistent. Moreover, TPPA-PKP and CTPA-PKP showed similar improvements in Visual Analog Scale score (MD = -0.18, 95% CI: -0.41 to 0.05) and Cobb angle (MD = -0.49, 95% CI: -1.05 to 0.07).
conclusionTPPA-PKP suggests potential advantages in safety and functional recovery compared with CTPA-PKP for OVCFs; however, the low-certainty evidence according to the GRADE warrants caution in interpretation. CTPA-PKP remains widely used in clinical practice. Further standardization of TPPA-PKP procedures may facilitate its broader adoption.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42162284What 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.