Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32015301›Full record

ArticleMedical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research2020

A Retrospective Study to Compare the Efficacy of Preoperative Halo-Gravity Traction and Postoperative Halo-Femoral Traction After Posterior Spinal Release in Corrective Surgery for Severe Kyphoscoliosis.

Bo Shi, Dun Liu, Benlong Shi, Yang Li, Sanqiang Xia, Enze Jiang, Yong Qiu, Zezhang Zhu

Open access · hybridAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 19% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 18 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. How helpful is the halo-gravity traction in severe spinal deformity patients?: A systematic review and meta-analysis.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2021
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Bo ShiDepartment of Spine Surgery, The Affiliated Drum Tower Hospital of Nanjing University Medical School, Nanjing, Jiangsu, China (mainland).
Dun LiuDepartment of Spine Surgery, The Affiliated Drum Tower Hospital of Nanjing University Medical School, Nanjing, Jiangsu, China (mainland).
Benlong ShiDepartment of Spine Surgery, The Affiliated Drum Tower Hospital of Nanjing University Medical School, Nanjing, Jiangsu, China (mainland).
Yang LiDepartment of Spine Surgery, The Affiliated Drum Tower Hospital of Nanjing University Medical School, Nanjing, Jiangsu, China (mainland).
Sanqiang XiaDepartment of Spine Surgery, The Affiliated Drum Tower Hospital of Nanjing University Medical School, Nanjing, Jiangsu, China (mainland).
Enze JiangDepartment of Spine Surgery, The Affiliated Drum Tower Hospital of Nanjing University Medical School, Nanjing, Jiangsu, China (mainland).
Yong QiuDepartment of Spine Surgery, The Affiliated Drum Tower Hospital of Nanjing University Medical School, Nanjing, Jiangsu, China (mainland).
Zezhang ZhuDepartment of Spine Surgery, The Affiliated Drum Tower Hospital of Nanjing University Medical School, Nanjing, Jiangsu, China (mainland).
Nanjing Drum Tower Hospital · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND This retrospective clinical study aimed to compare the efficacy of preoperative halo-gravity traction with postoperative halo-femoral traction after posterior spinal release in corrective surgery for patients with severe kyphoscoliosis. MATERIAL AND METHODS A retrospective clinical study included patients who underwent elective corrective surgery for severe kyphoscoliosis (N=60) between 2013 and 2015. Two patient groups were compared, the postoperative halo-femoral traction after posterior spinal release (R-HF) group (N=30) and the preoperative halo-gravity traction (HGT) group (N=30). Demographic and clinicopathological data included age, gender, Cobb angle, degree of spinal curvature, history of osteotomy, and etiological factors. Patients in the two study groups were matched. Postoperative surgical outcome was evaluated by the radiographic coronal Cobb angle, global kyphosis, coronal balance, and the sagittal vertical axis (SVA). Clinical outcome was assessed using the Scoliosis Research Society Outcomes Questionnaire (SRS-22). RESULTS The preoperative Cobb angle was similar between the R+HF group and the HGT group (123.5±12.7° vs. 123.1±14.1°; P=0.909). Following postoperative traction, a significantly higher correction rate was found in the R+HF group than the HGT group (31.8±7.8% vs. 19.3±12.9%; P=0.001). The postoperative correction rate in the R+HF group was significantly higher than the HGT group (44.7±7.8% vs. 39.0±12.8%; P=0.042). In both study groups, the postoperative SRS-22 scores were significantly improved with no statistical difference between the two groups, and no neurological complications occurred. CONCLUSIONS Patients with severe kyphoscoliosis who underwent postoperative halo-femoral traction after posterior spinal release achieved satisfactory radiographic correction.

Indexed as

GravitationPreoperative CareTractionAdolescentAdultFemaleFemurHumansKyphosisMalePostoperative PeriodRetrospective StudiesScoliosisSpineTreatment OutcomeYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID32015301
PMCPMC7020739
OpenAlexW3001250346

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.