Cement Leakage in Percutaneous Vertebroplasty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: Prospective case series. OBJECTIVES: To determine the safety and feasibility of routine preinjection of gelfoam embolization during percutaneous vertebroplasty. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Percutaneous vertebroplasty has been used effectively in pain relief for vertebral fractures resulting from malignancy and osteoporosis. However, cement extrusion is a common problem and can lead to complications. Gelfoam embolization of venous channels before cement injection has not been widely used as a technique to prevent leakage. METHODS: Thirty-one patients who met the inclusion-exclusion criteria for the study underwent percutaneous vertebroplasty. Venography was first performed to determine the flow pattern in the vertebrae and confirm needle placement. Next, routine gelfoam embolization of venous channels was performed. This was followed by low-pressure, minimal-volume cement injection. The outcome measure of cement leakage was assessed after surgery using radiographs and CT scans. RESULTS: There were no complications. In the 31 patients, 61 levels of vertebroplasty were performed. Overall, there were 16 leaks out of 61 levels in 12 patients (26.2%). In osteoporotic fractures, there were 11 leaks in 49 levels, giving a leakage rate of 22.5%. There was only 1 epidural leak in this group (2%), and this was asymptomatic. Seven leakages were into the adjacent disc, 2 into the body, and 1 into the paravertebral tissues. In malignant fractures, there were 5 leakages out of 12 levels (41.7%). Of these, 2 were epidural leaks (16.7%), which were asymptomatic. CONCLUSIONS: Complications resulting from leakage are the most feared side effect of the procedure. This has resulted in only limited application of vertebroplasty in the United Kingdom. Routine gelfoam embolization together with careful technique has been shown to be a safe and feasible method during vertebroplasty.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".