ArticleSpine deformity2021
Vertebral growth modulation by posterior dynamic deformity correction device in skeletally immature patients with moderate adolescent idiopathic scoliosis.
Article in Spine deformity, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical outcomes and complications of the posterior dynamic distraction device in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: 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 · 2026Review
- Segmental trans-endplate pedicle screws do not induce spinal deformity in a porcine model.Spine deformity · 2026Article
- A novel multi-modal signals dynamic assessment method of idiopathic scoliosis patients for rehabilitation.Medical & biological engineering & computing · 2026Article
- Article
- Matched comparison of non-fusion surgeries for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: posterior dynamic distraction device and vertebral body tethering.Spine deformity · 2025Article
- Differential vertebral body growth is maintained after vertebral body tethering surgery for idiopathic scoliosis: 4-year follow-up on 888 peri-apical vertebrae and 592 intervertebral discs.Spine deformity · 2024Article
- Can Dynamic Spinal Stabilization Be an Alternative to Fusion Surgery in Adult Spinal Deformity Cases?International journal of spine surgery · 2024Article
- Surgical Treatment of Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis with the ApiFix Minimal Invasive Dynamic Correction System-A Preliminary Report of a 24-Month Follow-Up.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Concave and convex growth do not differ over tethered vertebral segments, even with open tri-radiate cartilage.Spine deformity · 2023Article
- Fusionless All-Pedicle Screws for Posterior Deformity Correction in AIS Immature Patients Permit the Restoration of Normal Vertebral Morphology and Removal of the Instrumentation Once Bone Maturity Is Reached.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- Anterior vertebral body tethering for idiopathic scoliosis in growing children: A systematic review.World journal of orthopedics · 2022Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
STUDY
designRetrospective, comparative, multicenter.
introductionGrowth modulating spinal implants are used in the management of scoliosis such as anterior vertebral body tethering. A motion-sparing posterior device (PDDC) was recently approved for the treatment of moderate AIS. The purpose of this study was to determine if the PDDC can modulate growth in skeletally immature patients with AIS.
methodsFrom a database of patients treated with the PDDC over 4 years, we identified those who had a minimum of 2 years follow-up. Pre-operative and post-operative Cobb angles and coronal plane wedging of the apical vertebra were evaluated on standing full length radiographs. Independent sample t test and one-way ANOVA with post-hoc Tukey HSD analysis was used to compare three groups in varying skeletal maturity: Risser 0-1, Risser 2-3, and Risser 4-5.
results45 patients (14.2-years old, 11-17) were evaluated with a mean pre-op curve of 46° (35°-66°). The average preoperative major curve magnitude, of either Lenke 1 or 5 curve type, was similar among the three groups 47.6°, 46° and 41.5°. Deformity correction was similar in the three groups, with reduction to 26.4°, 20.4° and 26.2°, respectively, at final follow-up [p < 0.05]. Pre-op wedging 7.4° (3.8°-15°) was reduced after surgery to 5.7° (1°-15°) (p < 0.05). Of those patients, Risser 0-1 (n = 16) had preoperative wedging of 9.5° (6°-14.5°) that was reduced to 5.4° (1°-8°) postoperatively (p < 0.05); Risser 2-3 (n = 15) had pre-op 7.7° (4°-15°) vs. post-op 7.0° (3°-15°); Risser 4-5 (n = 14) had pre-op 4.8° (3.8°-6.5°) vs. post-op 4.7° (3.7°-6.5°). Delta Wedging in Risser 0-1 stage was significantly different than for Risser 2-3 and for Risser 4-5.
conclusionThe posterior dynamic deformity correction device was able to modulate vertebral body wedging in skeletally immature patients with AIS. This was most evident in patients who were Risser 0-1. In contrast, curve correction was similar among the three groups. This finding lends support to the device's ability to modulate growth.
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.