↓ Skip to main content

Comparison of unilateral and bilateral percutaneous vertebroplasty for osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research, December 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (51st percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (61st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
43 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
22 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Comparison of unilateral and bilateral percutaneous vertebroplasty for osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Published in
Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research, December 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13018-016-0479-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Haolin Sun, Chunde Li

Abstract

The aim of this meta-analysis is to examine the safety and effectiveness of unilateral percutaneous vertebroplasty (PVP) for treatment of osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures (OVCFs) compared with that of bilateral treatment. The multiple databases including PubMed, Springer, EMBASE, OVID, and China Journal Full-text Database were adopted to search for relevant studies in English or Chinese, and full-text articles involving comparison of unilateral and bilateral PVP surgery were reviewed. Review Manager 5.0 was adopted to estimate the effects of the results among selected articles. Forest plots, sensitivity analysis, and bias analysis for the articles included were also conducted. Finally, 1043 patients were included in the 14 studies, which eventually satisfied the eligibility criteria, and unilateral and bilateral surgeries were 550 and 493, respectively. The meta-analysis suggested that there was no significant difference of VAS score, ODI score, and cement leakage rate (MD = 0.12, 95%CI [-0.03, 0.26], P = 0.11; MD = -1.28, 95%CI [-3.59, 1.04], P = 0.28; RR = 0.89, 95%CI [0.61, 1.29], P = 0.52). The surgery time of unilateral PVP is much less than that of bilateral PVP (MD = -16.67, 95%CI [-19.22, -14.12], P < 0.00001). Patients with bilateral PVP surgery have been injected more cement than patients with unilateral PVP surgery (MD = -1.55, 95%CI [-1.94, -1.16], P < 0.00001). Both punctures provide excellent pain relief and improvement of life quality. We still encourage the use of the unipedicular approach as the preferred surgical technique for treatment of OVCFs due to less operation time, limited X-ray exposure, and minimal cement introduction and extravasation.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 22 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 22 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 5 23%
Student > Master 3 14%
Student > Postgraduate 3 14%
Student > Bachelor 3 14%
Researcher 3 14%
Other 3 14%
Unknown 2 9%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 13 59%
Neuroscience 2 9%
Linguistics 1 5%
Unspecified 1 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 5%
Other 1 5%
Unknown 3 14%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 11 May 2017.
All research outputs
#12,980,031
of 22,908,162 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research
#371
of 1,381 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#196,939
of 416,469 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research
#6
of 18 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,908,162 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,381 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 416,469 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 18 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% of its contemporaries.