• spine
• intervention
• malignant

The AJNR published a game changing manuscript in 1997. A group composed mostly of neurointerventionalists described the use of polymethylmethacrylate in painful osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures.1 Soon thereafter, this then nascent technique began to flourish throughout many parts of the world. Since its inception, the JNIS has published content covering all aspects of neurointervention, including spine intervention; the first issue featured an article prospectively evaluating pain and functional outcomes after vertebroplasty.2 Over the years, JNIS has featured a variety of articles that advanced our knowledge and improved the capability of percutaneous approaches to treat spinal lesions, for example, in cancer patients.3 4 Moreover, the manuscripts have promoted understanding of the capabilities of percutaneous approaches to treating extra-spinal locations, for example, sacroplasty,5 6 acetabuloplasty,7 and even calcaneoplasty.8

JNIS has been receiving an ever-increasing number of high-quality manuscript submissions. This was very apparent during the most acute period of the COVID-19 pandemic.9 Topics related to mechanical spine have been a critical part of that growth. This commentary will highlight that subject matter—important spine articles from the last few years.

Driven by clinical results, the number of patients treated with cement augmentation increased year over year from the time of the seminal Jensen AJNR paper. The simultaneous 2009 publication of two blinded studies in the NEJM raised some questions regarding the effectiveness of vertebroplasty over a sham procedure. Subsequent randomized control trials demonstrated vertebroplasty provided improved patient outcomes compared with sham procedures. These results have been extensively discussed in JNIS and other venues.10 The scientific discourse and conflicting results have impacted patient …