ReviewNeurosurgical review2026
Vertebral augmentation procedures for osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures: a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Review in Neurosurgical review, 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
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures (OVCF) are common and disabling. Augmentation techniques differ by access (uni vs. bi), trajectory (curved vs. straight), and implant platform, but direct head-to-head evidence is limited. We conducted a frequentist random-effects network meta-analysis (NMA) of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with method-specific nodes (unipedicular percutaneous vertebroplasty (UPVP), bipedicular percutaneous vertebroplasty (BPVP), unipedicular percutaneous kyphoplasty (UPKP), bipedicular percutaneous kyphoplasty (BPKP), percutaneous curved vertebroplasty (PCVP), percutaneous curved kyphoplasty (PCKP), deflectable percutaneous kyphoplasty (DPKP), dual-plane UPVP, KIVA, TIVAD, and conservative care). Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool. Outcomes were Visual Analog Scale score (VAS) (≤ 14 days, 1-3 months, > 6 months), the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) (post-operative, long-term) (measured at the earliest post-procedural assessment and at long-term follow-up > 6 months), vertebral height restoration (%), local kyphotic angle (LKA) at last follow-up, bone-cement leakage, secondary vertebral fractures, and operative time. Twenty-eight RCTs (n = 3,049) were included. By P-scores, DPKP and dual-plane UPVP ranked highest for VAS ≤ 14 days (conservative ranked last), PCVP and UPKP ranked highest at 1-3 months, and dual-plane UPVP and PCVP ranked highest at > 6 months. For disability, PCKP and UPKP ranked best post-operatively, and dual-plane UPVP and PCKP ranked best at long-term follow-up. Radiographically, BPKP and KIVA ranked highest for vertebral height restoration, while PCKP and UPKP yielded the lowest LKA at last follow-up. Leakage was lowest with the Shield kyphoplasty system (Soteira), PCVP and PCKP, secondary fractures were lowest with TIVAD and KIVA, and operative time was shortest with UPKP and PCVP. In an RCT-based NMA of OVCF treatments, augmentation generally ranked above conservative care for pain, but no single technique dominated all endpoints. Procedure selection should be tailored to the clinical goal - pain control, height/alignment, safety, or efficiency - while considering patient factors.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42412248What 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.