ArticleNeuroradiology2025
Long-term outcome following vertebroplasty or bone cementoplasty in multiple myeloma patients.
Article in Neuroradiology, 2025. 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
21 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveEvaluating long-term outcomes following cementoplasty in patients with multiple myeloma (MM).
methodsThis is a single-center, retrospective study on all cementoplasties performed between January 2012 and December 2017. Patients with MM with a control MRI or CT scan beyond 5 years after the procedure were included. Images were reviewed blinded to the patients' clinical status.
resultsDuring the inclusion period, 2085 patients underwent cementoplasty, including 154 patients with MM. Forty-seven patients (33 men (70%); median age 62.2 years [IQR 53.8;69.6]) were included. The patients underwent 74 procedures (142 cemented sites: 129 vertebrae, 11 pelvic girdle cementoplasties, and 2 other sites; 101 (71%) demineralized fractures and 41 (29%) osteolytic lacunae). No serious procedure-related adverse effects were observed. Only 2 (1.4%) recurrent fractures of the cemented bone were observed. At-risk adjacent vertebrae were defined as non-cemented vertebrae, adjacent to a cemented vertebra: 15/109 (14%) fractures of at-risk adjacent vertebrae were documented during follow-up (15/99 [15%] after excluding cervical at-risk vertebrae). Intervertebral disc cement leakage was significantly associated with the occurrence of vertebral fracture at the adjacent level (31% vs. 8.8%, p = 0.022). Fourteen patients (30%) developed a new vertebral fracture that was remote from the cemented site. These were more frequent in patients with higher bone marrow plasmacytosis (median 23% vs. 13%, p = 0.014), relapsed multiple myeloma (86% vs. 55%, p = 0.042) and bone demineralization fractures (93% vs. 48%, p < 0.01).
conclusionBone cementoplasty for MM is a durable treatment. At-risk adjacent vertebra fracture is a frequent event, prompting a discussion on prophylactic adjacent-level cementoplasty.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40911195What 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.