ArticleEuropean radiology2026
Feasibility of spondyloplasty with SpineJack
Article in European radiology, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the feasibility of spondyloplasty with SpineJack MATERIALS AND
methodsIn this retrospective bicentric study, all patients treated with spondyloplasty using SpineJack
resultsA total of 148 patients (mean age 49 ± 37 years ; 55% of male) underwent 151 spondyloplasties: 51 in the TP group and 100 in the APS group. Correct implant positioning was achieved in all procedures in both groups (100%). There was no significant difference in vertebral height restoration (81% vs. 71%; p = 0.058). Radiation exposure was significantly lower in the TP group (p = 0.02), while procedure duration and hospital stay were comparable, with 55% of procedures performed on an outpatient basis. Complication rates did not differ significantly, consisting mostly of cement leakages (20% vs. 19%; p = 0.93).
conclusionSpondyloplasty with SpineJack KEY POINTS: Question Does pedicle size below recommended thresholds affect procedural feasibility, safety, and clinical outcomes when performing SpineJack® implantation under radiological guidance? Findings SpineJack® implantation achieved 100% correct positioning in thin pedicles, with complication rates, procedure duration, and hospital stay comparable to standard pedicle sizes. Clinical relevance These findings support expanding SpineJack® indications to patients with narrow pedicles, increasing access to safe and efficient minimally invasive vertebral fracture treatment for a broader patient population.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42423755What 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.