A 20‐Year Review of Biomechanical Experimental Studies on Spine Implants Used for Percutaneous Surgical Repair of Vertebral Compression Fractures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A vertebral compression fracture (VCF) is an injury to a vertebra of the spine affecting the cortical walls and/or middle cancellous section. The most common risk factor for a VCF is osteoporosis, thus predisposing the elderly and postmenopausal women to this injury. Clinical consequences include loss of vertebral height, kyphotic deformity, altered stance, back pain, reduced mobility, reduced abdominal space, and reduced thoracic space, as well as early mortality. To restore vertebral mechanical stability, overall spine function, and patient quality of life, the original percutaneous surgical intervention has been vertebroplasty, whereby bone cement is injected into the affected vertebra. Because vertebroplasty cannot fully restore vertebral height, newer surgical techniques have been developed, such as kyphoplasty, stents, jacks, coils, and cubes. But, relatively few studies have experimentally assessed the biomechanical performance of these newer procedures. This article reviews over 20 years of scientific literature that has experimentally evaluated the biomechanics of percutaneous VCF repair methods. Specifically, this article describes the basic operating principles of the repair methods, the study protocols used to experimentally assess their biomechanical performance, and the actual biomechanical data measured, as well as giving a number of recommendations for future research directions.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".