SynthesisArchives of osteoporosis2025
Modified versus conventional percutaneous kyphoplasty for osteoporotic vertebral compression fracture treatment: a systematic review and pilot meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Archives of osteoporosis, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Unilateral extrapedicular versus unilateral and bilateral transpedicular approaches in percutaneous vertebral augmentation for osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures: A meta-analysis.Joint diseases and related surgery · 2026Pooled it
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis study compares the safety and clinical effectiveness of modified percutaneous kyphoplasty (PKP) approaches (transverse process-pedicle or extrapedicular) with the conventional transpedicular approach for treating osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures.
methodsWe searched various databases, including PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Embase, and Scopus. Safety outcomes included operative time, radiation dose, injected cement volume, and cement leakage rate, while efficacy outcomes were the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Cobb's angle, and vertebral body height. The quality of cohort studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Score, and a meta-analysis was conducted using Review Manager 5.4.
resultsNine high-quality cohort studies involving 1,187 patients were included. Compared to conventional PKP, the modified approach resulted in significantly shorter operative time (mean differences [MD]: - 11.72, 95% confidence interval [CI]: - 16.56 to - 6.88, p < 0.00001), lower radiation dose (standardized mean differences: - 2.21, 95% CI: - 2.96 to - 1.45, p < 0.00001), reduced injected cement volume (MD: - 0.89, 95% CI: - 1.58 to - 0.21, p = 0.01), and a lower cement leakage rate (MD: 0.58, 95% CI: 0.41-0.80, p = 0.001). However, both groups had no significant differences in VAS score, ODI score, Cobb's angle, or vertebral body height.
conclusionNo significant difference in pain relief or functional improvement was observed between modified and conventional PKP. However, modified PKP has a shorter operative time, a lower radiation dose, a lower injected cement volume, and a lower cement leakage rate than conventional PKP. These findings suggest that modified PKP is safer, with similar therapeutic outcomes to conventional PKP.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40205026What 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.