Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34003460›Full record

ArticleSpine deformity2021

Defining the learning curve in CT-guided navigated thoracoscopic vertebral body tethering.

Smitha Mathew, A Noelle Larson, D Dean Potter, Todd A Milbrandt

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

15 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Does screw alignment affect tether breakage in vertebral body tethering?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 · 2025
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Radiographic outcome after vertebral body tethering of the lumbar spine.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 · 2023
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. 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

4 authors.

Smitha MathewDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, Mayo Clinic, 200 1st St SW, Rochester, MN, USA.
A Noelle LarsonDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, Mayo Clinic, 200 1st St SW, Rochester, MN, USA. larson.noelle@mayo.edu.ORCID 0000-0001-6542-6975
D Dean PotterDivision of Pediatric Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
Todd A MilbrandtDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, Mayo Clinic, 200 1st St SW, Rochester, MN, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Estimated blood loss (EBL), anesthesia time, operative time, and length of stay decreased over 67 navigated vertebral body tethering (VBT) surgeries performed in a 5-year period, indicating a steep learning curve.

designRetrospective review of prospectively collected data. HYPOTHESIS: There would be a significant improvement in the performance of VBT procedures over time at a single tertiary center in terms of perioperative and postoperative outcomes. PURPOSE: Learning a new procedure for surgeons takes time, and previous studies have described improved efficiency as experience grows. VBT procedures are increasingly being performed in the US, but there is limited data regarding the learning curve specifically regarding the use of CT-guided navigation. We sought to assess the learning curve of VBT with respect to estimated blood loss, anesthesia time, operative time, length of stay, percent correction of the major curve at first follow-up. We further sought to characterize change in rates of 90-day complications.

methodsPediatric scoliosis patients who underwent thoracic or lumbar CT-guided navigated VBT with a consistent surgical team at a single tertiary referral center between 2015 and 2020 were included. Student t-test was used to assess change in perioperative parameters over time, and also results between first and latest group of 20 patients were compared.

results67 patients met inclusion criteria. Estimated blood loss (EBL), operative time, anesthesia time and length of stay significantly decreased over the 5-year study period. Specifically, on comparison of our first 20 patients with our last 20, the former had greater EBL (282 vs 116 ml, p = 0.0005; 8.5% vs 3.6%, p = 0.0024), operative time (4.8 h vs. 3.3 h, p < 0.001), anesthesia time (7.4 h vs. 5.7 h, p = 0.0001), and length of stay (3.7 days vs. 3.2 days, p = 0.019). We also found significant reduction in EBL, operative time, anesthesia time and LOS in patients who underwent VBT surgery after 2019. There was no significant change in the percent correction of the major Cobb angle at first erect imaging or 90-day complications over the 5-year study period or between the various cohorts.

conclusionThis series has demonstrated improvements in surgical efficiency for VBT including reduced EBL, operative time, anesthesia time and hospital stay over a 5-year period. This indicates improved surgical technique and outlines the significant learning curve for surgeons who wish to perform this procedure. Improved surgeon training programs and newer instrumentation may reduce this learning curve. TAKE HOME POINT: 67 cases in a 5-year period, VBT procedures performed at a single center had significantly decreased EBL, anesthesia time, operative time, and length of stay, indicating a steep learning curve.

Indexed as

Learning CurveVertebral BodyChildHumansRetrospective StudiesTomography, X-Ray ComputedTreatment OutcomeLearning curveScoliosisVertebral body tethering

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.