ArticleBMC surgery2025
Clinical effect analysis of unilateral percutaneous vertebral cement distribution in the repair of osteoporotic thoracolumbar vertebral compression fractures.
Article in BMC surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Impact of Bone Cement Distribution in Unilateral PVP on Therapeutic Outcomes of Vertebral Compression Fracture Repair.Orthopedic research and reviews · 2026Article
- Article
- Preoperative CT-Based Planning for Unilateral Pedicle Approach PVP Reduces Cement Leakage and Improves Radiological Outcomes in Osteoporotic Vertebral Compression Fractures: A Retrospective Cohort Study.Journal of pain research · 2026Article
- Genant grade-based stratification in percutaneous curved kyphoplasty: Superior early analgesic efficacy and cement distribution characteristics in moderate to severe osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures.Neurosurgical review · 2025Article
- Refracture and Mortality Following Surgical Management of Osteoporotic Vertebral Fractures: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis with Patient-Level Survival Modeling.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Association between sarcopenia on residual back pain after percutaneous kyphoplasty for osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2025Article
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
backgroundOsteoporotic vertebral fractures and their complications pose increasing risks to the elderly. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the clinical efficacy of unilateral percutaneous vertebroplasty in patients with osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures (OVCF) by assessing postoperative cement distribution.
objectiveThis study aimed to investigate the impact of cement distribution on the efficacy of vertebral compression fracture repair to provide effective preventive and therapeutic measures, prevent postoperative vertebral re-fracture, and improve surgical outcomes.
methodsA total of 170 patients who underwent unilateral percutaneous vertebroplasty at our hospital from January 2020 to December 2022 were selected. Based on the postoperative X-ray cement distribution morphology, they were divided into the good distribution group (n = 87) and the poor dispersion group (n = 83). The basic information of patients, surgery-related indicators including operation time, total hospitalization costs, postoperative hospitalization time, cement injection volume, visual analog scale (VAS) for back pain, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) for back pain, vertebral height restoration rate, local kyphotic angle of the vertebra, and incidence of re-fracture of injured and adjacent vertebrae were compared between the two groups, and the follow-up results of all patients were recorded.
resultsThere were no significant differences in age, gender, body mass index, fracture days, menopausal age of female patients, bone density T value, medical history, smoking history, alcohol history, and surgical segments between the two groups (P > 0.05). The VAS scores for back pain at 1 month and 1 year postoperatively were significantly lower in the good distribution group than in the poor dispersion group, with statistical significance (P < 0.05). The good distribution group had a significantly lower incidence of re-fracture of injured vertebrae and overall fracture incidence than the poor dispersion group (P < 0.05). There were no statistically significant differences in operation time, cement dosage, cement leakage, postoperative hospitalization time, adjacent vertebral fractures, postoperative vertebral height restoration rate, VAS scores for back pain at preoperative and 1 week postoperative, and ODI at preoperative, 1 week, 1 month, and 1 year postoperative between the two groups (P > 0.05).
conclusionCompared with the poor dispersion group, patients in the cement distribution group achieved better short-term clinical efficacy, and long-term prognosis effects are still under observation. Moreover, the cement good distribution group significantly reduced the incidence of re-fracture of injured vertebrae and overall fracture incidence, thereby achieving better surgical outcomes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.