ArticleJournal of craniovertebral junction & spine
Sublaminar fixation versus hooks and pedicle screws in scoliosis surgery for Marfan syndrome.
Article in Journal of craniovertebral junction & spine. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Does the addition of convex uniplanar screws in hybrid constructs improve 3D surgical correction in thoracic adolescent idiopathic scoliosis posterior fusion?Journal of children's orthopaedics · 2024Article
- Marfan syndrome: insights from animal models.Frontiers in genetics · 2024Review
- [Latest advances in the diagnosis and treatment of Marfan syndrome].Zhongguo dang dai er ke za zhi = Chinese journal of contemporary pediatrics · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn patients with Marfan syndrome (MFS), surgical correction of spinal deformities with hooks and/or pedicle screws involves a higher rate of complications than in patients with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Therefore, sublaminar instrumentation is often a last resort option. This study wants to assess the ability of sublaminar fixation to achieve three-dimensional scoliosis correction and spine stabilization compared with hook and/or pedicle screw systems.
methodsTwenty-one MFS patients who underwent posterior spinal fusion at a highly specialized medical center in 1995-2017 were divided into two different groups retrospectively evaluated at a minimum follow-up of 2 years. Group 1 (8 patients) was composed by hooks and screws instrumentation, while Group 2 (13 patients) was composed by hook or pedicle screw system associated to sublaminar wires/bands. Radiological (correction and long-term stability) and general endpoints (mean blood loss, surgery time, and complications) were compared between the groups.
resultsThe degree of correction compared with the preoperative status was satisfactory with both approaches, although the difference between them was not significant. No significant differences were found for general endpoints between groups.
conclusionOur data suggest that scoliosis correction with sublaminar fixation is not inferior to treatment with hooks and/or pedicle screws. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.