MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2044612815 · doi:10.1097/brs.0b013e3181a3c742

Percutaneous Treatment of Vertebral Compression Fractures

2009· review· en· W2044612815 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueSpine · 2009
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpinal Fractures and Fixation Techniques
Canadian institutionsDiscovery Air (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSurgeryProspective cohort studyVertebral compression fractureComplicationPercutaneous vertebroplastyAsymptomaticRadiological weaponMeta-analysisPercutaneousCompression (physics)RadiologyInternal medicineVertebral body

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

STUDY DESIGN AND OBJECTIVE: This study performs a meta-analysis to compare complication rates from vertebroplasty (VP) and kyphoplasty (KP). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Recently, the development of VP and balloon KP has been shown to provide symptomatic relief and restoration of sagittal alignment of vertebral compression fractures refractory to medical therapy. Complications in treatment of vertebral compression fractures are rare, however can be potentially devastating. Fortunately, clinical sequelae are rare; however, severe clinical complications from cement extravasation have been reported. METHODS: Using PubMed and Ovid, we performed a literature search for "kyphoplasty," "vertebroplasty," and "vertebral augmentation." This search was performed in December 2006. Case reports and reports not available in English were excluded. We categorized complications in 3 categories: (1) procedure-related complications, (2) medical complications, and (3) new vertebral fracture. Cement leakage, asymptomatic and symptomatic, and its locations were recorded. We performed a meta-analysis of complications of all studies. We then repeated the meta-analysis examining only prospective studies. We then used proportion analysis to determine statistical significance. We defined statistical significance as a P value less than 0.05. RESULTS: We identified 121 reports of KP and/or VP that specifically addressed complications. Of these studies, 33 addressed KP and 82 addressed VP (6 reports addressed complications of both). There were 29 reports in which the data appeared to be collected prospectively. Of these, 9 addressed KP and 21 addressed VP.VP was found to have a significantly increased rate of procedure-related complications than KP in the analysis of all studies and only prospective studies. VP also appears to have a significantly higher rate of symptomatic and asymptomatic cement leakage than KP (P < 0.05). The incidence of medical complications was significantly higher in the KP procedure; however, this difference was not observed when analyzing only prospective studies. The incidence of new fracture was significantly higher in the VP procedure; however, this was not observed when analyzing only prospective studies. CONCLUSION: VP and KP are 2 minimally invasive procedures that have been shown to be effective in the treatment of symptomatic vertebral compression fractures. Although the incidence of adverse events for both VP and KP are low, it appears that VP is associated with a statistically significant increased rate of procedure-related complications and cement extravasation (symptomatic and asymptomatic). Future prospective studies with large patient enrollment will be needed to further validate the finding of this meta-analysis.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.996
Threshold uncertainty score0.781

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.407
Teacher spread0.361 · 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