Comparison of Outcomes Between Percutaneous Vertebroplasty and Percutaneous Kyphoplasty for the Treatment of Kümmell’s Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: A meta-analysis. OBJECTIVE: The aim is to compare the efficacy of percutaneous vertebroplasty (PVP) and percutaneous kyphoplasty (PKP) in treating Kümmell's disease (KD) without neurological deficits. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: PVP and PKP are routine methods for the treatment of KD without neurological deficits; however, whether PVP or PKP is superior is a matter of debate. MATERIALS AND METHODS: According to the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and Web of Knowledge were searched for eligible randomized controlled trials or cohort studies. Two authors independently collected data and assessed the methodologic quality of the included studies. Intraoperative and postoperative clinical outcomes, cement leakage, refracture rate, and the costs during hospitalization were evaluated. RESULTS: Five observational studies comparing 119 PVP and 128 PKP patients were included in qualitative and quantitative reviews. All of the included s studies had evidence of good quality, as assessed by the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. On the basis of meta-analysis the operation time [weighted mean difference: -10.65; 95% confidence interval (95% CI): -11.94 to -9.35; P <0.00001] and hospitalization cost (weighted mean difference: -2.38; 95% CI: -2.87 to -1.89; P <0.00001) were less for PVP, while the cement leakage rate was lower for PKP (odds ratio: 3.03; 95% CI: 1.58-5.82; P <0.001). Together, the data indicated that the differences in cement volume, visual analog scale score, Oswestry disability index score, Cobb angle, anterior vertebral height, and refracture rate were not significantly different. CONCLUSION: The findings of this study suggest that PVP and PKP are safe and effective for the treatment of KD. PVP required less operative time and was more affordable, but PKP was superior given the lower cement leakage rate. Additional high-quality randomized controlled trials designed to support these findings are warranted.
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 | 0.016 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.020 | 0.053 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| 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".