SynthesisJoint diseases and related surgery2026
Unilateral extrapedicular versus unilateral and bilateral transpedicular approaches in percutaneous vertebral augmentation for osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures: A meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Joint diseases and related surgery, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe present meta-analysis aims to perform a comprehensive, evidence-based comparison of the effectiveness and safety of the unilateral extrapedicular approach (UEA) percutaneous vertebral augmentation and transpedicular approach percutaneous vertebral augmentation for osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures (OVCFs). MATERIALS AND
methodsPublications indexed up to May 2025 were interrogated across Cochrane Library, Web of Science, PubMed, Embase, and SpringerLink using the combined keywords "unilateral extrapedicular approach", "transpedicular approach", "percutaneous vertebral augmentation", "percutaneous vertebroplasty", "percutaneous kyphoplasty", and "osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures". Mean difference (MD) and risk difference (RD) served as summary metrics, each expressed with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).
resultsEight clinical trials involving 830 patients were included. The UEA significantly shortened operative time (MD=-4.26; 95% CI:-6.15 ~ -2.37; p<0.00001), compared to unilateral transpedicular approach (UTA), while no statistically significant differences were observed in cement leakage (RD:-0.01; 95% CI:-0.09 ~ 0.07; p=0.88), cement injection volume (MD=0.20; 95% CI:-0.02 ~ 0.41; p=0.07), or intraoperative fluoroscopy times (MD=-1.15; 95% CI:-3.62 ~ 1.32; p=0.36). Notably, UEA demonstrated significant advantages over bilateral transpedicular approach (BPA) in reducing cement leakage rate (RD:-0.08; 95% CI:-0.14 ~ -0.02; p=0.01), decreasing cement injection volume (MD=-1.51; 95% CI:-2.98 ~ -0.04; p=0.04), shortening operative time (MD=-9.64; 95% CI:-13.25 ~ -6.04; p<0.00001), and minimizing intraoperative fluoroscopy times (MD=-8.12; 95% CI:-12.36 ~ -3.88; p=0.0002). However, no significant intergroup differences were found between UEA and BPA in postoperative Visual Analog Scale (VAS) (MD=-0.04; 95% CI:-0.24 ~ 0.17; p=0.73), postoperative Cobb angle (MD=-0.37; 95% CI:-0.54 ~ 1.28; p=0.42) or Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) (MD=-0.54; 95% CI:-2.81 ~ 1.72; p=0.64).
conclusionIn the management of OVCFs, UEA offers shorter operative time compared with UTA. Additionally, UEA shows remarkable superiority over BPA in cement injection volume, cement leakage rate, intraoperative fluoroscopy frequency and operative time.
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.