MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W178632502

Percutaneous vertebroplasty in patients with intractable pain from osteoporotic or metastatic fractures: A prospective study using quality-of-life assessment.

2006· article· en· W178632502 on OpenAlexaffabout
Gordon Cheung, Edward Chow, Lori Holden, Marjan Vidmar, Cyril Danjoux, Albert Yee, Ruth Connolly, Joel Finkelstein

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpinal Fractures and Fixation Techniques
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreSunnybrook Health Science Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePercutaneous vertebroplastyNauseaQuality of life (healthcare)RadiologyPercutaneousSurgeryIntractable painMagnetic resonance imaging
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: Percutaneous vertebroplasty (PVP) is a minimally invasive outpatient procedure whereby vertebral compression fractures are stabilized by the injection of bone cement, or polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA). Rapid partial or complete pain relief can usually be achieved through this procedure. We prospectively evaluate the efficacy of PVP in the relief of pain and improvement in quality of life of patients with intractable pain from osteoporotic and metastatic fractures. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with intractable pain from vertebral metastases (many resistant to palliative radiation therapy) and patients with intractable painful osteoporotic fractures were treated with parapedicular or transpedicular injection of PMMA. Plane X-rays, computed tomography (CT) scan, and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan were performed on all patients. With a reflex hammer, percussion pain was correlated to the imaging abnormalities. The preplanning CT scan was used to calculate the exact entry point and angle of the bone-biopsy needle. All patients were assessed before and after the procedure for quality of life and amount of pain. The following measures were used: 1) the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS), for global pain, nausea, tiredness, depression, anxiety, drowsiness, appetite, sense of well-being, and shortness of breath; 2) a site-specific pain score (SSPS); 3) the amount of analgesic intake in morphine equivalents in the last 24 hours; and 4) the Townsend Functional Assessment Scale (TFAS), ascertaining mobility. A postprocedural CT scan was performed the same day on all patients. Follow-up assessment consisted of a phone call at Days 1, 2, and 4 and Weeks 1, 2, 4, 8, and 12. Patients with recurrent back pain or complications were followed in the bone metastases clinic. RESULTS: Thirty patients (19 women, 11 men) were evaluated. Their median age was 68 years (range 31 to 87 years). Thirty procedures (n = 30) at 45 vertebral levels were performed; 13 were for pathologic fractures, and 17 were for osteoporotic fractures. SSPS showed a decrease of 2 or more levels in 88.5% of patients at 12-week follow-up. The mean SSPS with movement was 8.7 preprocedure and 1.8 postprocedure (P < 0.0001). Also, there was significant improvement in all 9 ESAS domains (P < 0.0004). The ingestion of analgesics in morphine equivalents showed a trend toward reduction post-PVP (P < 0.0599). When the patients with pathologic fractures were separated out, the reduction in ingestion of analgesics was significant (P < 0.0008). The TFAS demonstrated significant improvement in patient mobility and function. Extravertebral extravasation of cement was noted in 55.6% of the levels. We used a general linear mixed-model repeated-measures analysis of variance to analyze the data. CONCLUSIONS: PVP in osteoporotic and metastatic fractures significantly improved many patients' global quality-of-life scores and function by markedly decreasing their back pain and reducing their intake of pain medications. The procedure is safe, with no serious complications noted in our study.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.281 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations54
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicSpinal Fractures and Fixation TechniquesFrench-language works237,207