Is Kiva Implant Advantageous to Balloon Kyphoplasty in Treating Osteolytic Metastasis to the Spine? Comparison of 2 Percutaneous Minimal Invasive Spine Techniques
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Brief Study Design. Prospective, parallel-group, controlled, comparative randomized study. Objective. To compare cement leakage rate and efficacy for vertebral body restoration of balloon kyphoplasty (BK) versus Kiva novel implant with polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) for treating osteolytic vertebral body metastasis. Summary of Background Data. Minimally invasively vertebral augmentation techniques with PMMA are mostly performed for treating osteoporotic compression fractures. The Kiva implant with PMMA offers better vertebral body restoration and less PMMA leakage than BK in osteoporotic fractures. No previous study compared leakage rate and efficacy for vertebral body restoration in traditional BK and Kiva with PMMA in osteolytic vertebral body metastases. Methods. This study examined 23 patients (71 ± 13 yr) with 41 osteolytic vertebral bodies, who received Kiva with low viscosity PMMA and 24 patients (70 ± 11 yr) with 43 vertebral body osteolyses, who were reinforced with BK and high viscosity PMMA. All osteolyses were graded as Tomita 1 to 3. Anterior vertebral body height ratio (AVBHr), posterior vertebral body height ratio (PVBHr), and middle vertebral body height ratio (MVBHr), Gardner kyphotic deformity, PMMA leakage and were measured and compared between the groups. Visual analogue scale and Oswestry Disability Index were used for functional outcome evaluation. Results. No patient survived after 3 months. Asymptomatic PMMA leakage occurred in 4 (9.3%) vertebrae in the BK group solely (2 to the spinal canal, in Tomita grade 3 osteolysis) Anterior, posterior and middle vertebral body height ratio, Gardner angle improved insignificantly in both groups. Visual anlogue scale and Oswestry Disability Index improved postoperatively similarly in both groups (P < 0.001). Conclusion. BK and Kiva provided equally significant spinal pain relief in patients with cancer with osteolytic metastasis. The absence of cement leakage in the Kiva group and absence of neurological complication in the BK group leakages reflects the safety of both augmentation techniques even in significant osteolysis. The lack of cement leakage in the Kiva cases, although low viscosity PMMA was used, increases this implant safety in augmenting severely destructed thoracolumbar vertebrae and sacrum from osteolytic metastasis. Level of Evidence: 1 Percutaneous Kiva implant with polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) and balloon kyphoplasty (BK) similarly, although insignificantly, restored postoperatively sagittal vertebral body height in patients with metastatic osteolysis Tomita grades 1 to 3 and prognostic Tomita scores 6 to 8. The main advantages of Kiva in this series was the absence of PMMA cement leakage even in significant osteolyses, compared with the 10% leakage rate observed in the BK cases and the better restoration of middle vertebral height.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".