Clinical Evaluation of Unilateral Vertebroplasty for OVCF

Abstract

Objective. To investigate the clinical evaluation of unilateral vertebroplasty for OVCF. Methods. A retrospective analysis was performed on 60 patients treated with PVP from January 2020 to December 2021. Patients were divided into two groups according to the treatment method, 30 patients in the PVP group received PVP and 30 patients in the PCVP group received PCVP. The VAS score, ODI score, bone cement dosage, and leakage were compared between the two groups preoperatively, immediately postoperatively, and 7 and 30 days postoperatively. Results. VAS scores in the PCVP and PVP groups before, immediately after, and 7 days after surgery were P > 0.05 , and the difference was not statistically significant; ODI score in group 1 before surgery was not statistically significant ( P > 0.05 ); bone cement injection volume in the PVP group was significantly higher than that in the PCVP group ( P < 0.05 ), and the difference was statistically significant; the difference in bone cement leakage between the two groups was not statistically significant ( P > 0.05 ). Conclusion. Under the same puncture conditions, the PCVP group used the method of injection while retreating to achieve a better bone cement dispersion effect by using less bone cement and achieving uniform dispersion of bone cement. It can relieve the patients’ back pain and improve the back function.

Retracted: Clinical Evaluation of Unilateral Vertebroplasty for OVCF

“…Tis article has been retracted by Hindawi following an investigation undertaken by the publisher [1]. Tis investigation has uncovered evidence of one or more of the following indicators of systematic manipulation of the publication process:…”

“…This article has been retracted by Hindawi following an investigation undertaken by the publisher [ 1 ]. This investigation has uncovered evidence of one or more of the following indicators of systematic manipulation of the publication process: Discrepancies in scope Discrepancies in the description of the research reported Discrepancies between the availability of data and the research described Inappropriate citations Incoherent, meaningless and/or irrelevant content included in the article Peer-review manipulation …”