Comparative analysis of the safety and efficacy of fenestrated pedicle screw with cement and conventional pedicle screw with cement in the treatment of osteoporotic vertebral fractures: A meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Bone cement-reinforced fenestrated pedicle screws (FPSs) have been widely used in the internal fixation and repair of the spine with osteoporosis in recent years and show significant improvement in fixation strength and stability. However, compared with conventional reinforcement methods, the advantages of bone cement-reinforced FPSs remain undetermined. This article compares the effects of fenestrated and conventional pedicle screws (CPSs) combined with bone cement in the treatment of osteoporosis. METHODS: A clinical control study of FPSs and CPSs combined with bone cement reinforcement in osteoporotic vertebral internal fixation was performed using the database PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, CNKI, the Wanfang, and the China Biomedical Literature Service System. Two evaluators screened the relevant literature in strict accordance with the inclusion criteria (diagnosis of participants, type of clinical study, treatment with FPS and CPS, and outcome indicators) and exclusion criteria (duplicate literature and missing or incorrect data) and independently conducted data extraction and quality evaluation. Clinical control studies of direct comparison between FPS and CPS combined with bone cement reinforcement in patients who were definitively diagnosed with thoracolumbar fractures or spinal degenerative diseases were included. Quality evaluation was conducted using the Cochrane risk bias evaluation tool for randomized controlled studies and using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for retrospective case-control studies. RevMan software (version 5.3) was used for the meta-analysis to compare the clinical efficacy, radiological results, and related complications of the 2 methods. RESULTS: A total of 13 articles were included, including 7 randomized controlled studies and 6 retrospective case-control studies. There were 909 patients in these studies, 451 in the FPS and polymethyl methacrylate (FPS & PMMA) group and 458 in the CPS and polymethyl methacrylate (CPS & PMMA) group. The results of the meta-analysis showed that there was no significant difference between the 2 groups in operation time, hospital stay, visual analogue score, Japanese orthopaedic association score, Oswestry disability index score, Cobb angle, vertebral body deformation index and fusion rate (p > 0.05). The mean difference of intraoperative bleeding volume was -10.45, (95% confidence intervals (CI) (-16.92, -3.98), p = 0.002), the mean difference of loss height of the anterior edge of the vertebral body after surgery was -0.69 (95% CI (-0.93, -0.44), p < 0.001), and the relative risk (RR) of overall complication rate was 0.43 (95% CI (0.27, 0.68), p < 0.001), including the RR of bone cement leakage rate was 0.57 (95% CI (0.39, 0.85), p = 0.005). The screw loosening rate (RR = 0.26, 95% CI (0.13, 0.54), p < 0.001) of the FPS group was significantly lower than that of the CPS group. CONCLUSION: The existing clinical evidence shows that compared with the CPS combined with bone cement, the use of FPS repair in the internal fixation of an osteoporotic vertebral body can reduce the amount of intraoperative bleeding, be more conducive to maintaining the height of the vertebral body, and significantly reduce the incidence of postoperative complications such as bone cement leakage and screw loosening.
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 | 0.017 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.023 | 0.060 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| 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".