Efficacy and safety of percutaneous cement discoplasty in the management of degenerative spinal diseases: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Percutaneous cement discoplasty (PCD) is a minimally invasive procedure. We aim to explore the efficacy and indication(s) of PCD in patients with degenerative disc disease (DDD). Methods The search was conducted across Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, and PubMed. Data on study design, patient demographics, pre- and post-procedure Visual Analog Scale (VAS) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores, and complications were extracted. Inclusion criteria focused on adult patients with degenerative spinal diseases treated with cement discoplasty. The overall effect size was evaluated using a forest plot, and heterogeneity was assessed using the I 2 statistic and chi-squared test. Results The search strategy yielded six studies, which included 336 patients (73.8% female, 26.2% male) with a mean average age of 74.6 years. VAS scores were reported in all studies, showing a significant difference between pre- and post-PCD pain scores (Weighted Mean Difference [WMD]: -3.45; 95% CI: -3.83, -3.08; I 2 = 15%; P < .001). ODI scores were reported in 83% of studies, with a significant difference between pre- and post-PCD scores (WMD: -22.22; 95% CI: -25.54, -18.89; I 2 = 61%; p < .001). Complications reported included infections, thrombophlebitis, vertebral fractures, disc extrusion, and the need for further operations. Conclusions The analysis showed clinically significant improvements in pain and functional disability based on VAS and ODI scores. However, due to methodological limitations and a high risk of bias, the validity and generalizability of the findings are uncertain. Despite these issues, the results provide preliminary insights into PCD's potential efficacy and can guide future research to address current limitations.
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 | 0.013 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.020 | 0.030 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| 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) | 0.004 | 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".