ArticleGlobal spine journal2022
Minimally Invasive Scoliosis Surgery Is a Feasible Option for Management of Idiopathic Scoliosis and Has Equivalent Outcomes to Open Surgery: A Meta-Analysis.
Article in Global spine journal, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05860673 (Minimally Invasive Surgery vs Standard Posterior Approach in the Treatment of Developmental Idiopathic Scoliosis), which is not on this map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Minimally Invasive Surgery vs Standard Posterior Approach in the Treatment of Developmental Idiopathic Scoliosis: Randomized Trial.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Posterior minimally invasive scoliosis surgery versus the standard posterior approach for the management of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: an updated meta-analysis.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2022Pooled it
- Techniques of Deformity Correction in Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis-A Narrative Review of the Existing Literature.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Complications in Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery in the Last 10 Years: A Narrative Review.Neurospine · 2024Article
- Minimally invasive surgery versus standard posterior approach in the treatment of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: a 2-year follow-up retrospective study.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 · 2024Article
- Minimally Invasive Surgery for Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis: A Systematic Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
- Minimally Invasive Surgery for Posterior Spinal Instrumentation and Fusion in Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis: Current Status and Future Application.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Inducing Angiogenesis in the Nucleus Pulposus.Cells · 2023Article
- The outcome of enhanced recovery after surgery vs. a traditional pathway in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis surgery: A retrospective comparative study.Frontiers in surgery · 2022Article
- Less Invasive Pediatric Spinal Deformity Surgery: The Case for Robotic-Assisted Placement of Pedicle Screws.HSS journal : the musculoskeletal journal of Hospital for Special Surgery · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
STUDY
designMeta-analysis.
objectiveTo compare outcomes between minimally invasive scoliosis surgery (MISS) and traditional posterior instrumentation and fusion in the correction of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS).
methodsA literature search was performed using MEDLINE, PubMed, EMBASE, Google scholar and Cochrane databases, including studies reporting outcomes for both MISS and open correction of AIS. Study details, demographics, and outcomes, including curve correction, estimated blood loss (EBL), operative time, postoperative pain, length of stay (LOS), and complications, were collected and analyzed.
resultsA total of 4 studies met the selection criteria and were included in the analysis, totaling 107 patients (42 MIS and 65 open) with a mean age of 16 years. Overall there was no difference in curve correction between MISS (73.2%) and open (76.7%) cohorts. EBL was significantly lower in the MISS (271 ml) compared to the open (527 ml) group, but operative time was significantly longer (380 min for MISS versus 302 min for open). There were no significant differences between the approaches in pain, LOS, complications, or reoperations.
conclusionMISS was associated with less blood loss but longer operative times compared to traditional open fusion for AIS. There was no difference in curve correction, postoperative pain, LOS, or complications/reoperations. While MISS has emerged as a feasible option for the surgical management of AIS, further research is warranted to compare these 2 approaches.
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.