ArticleEuropean spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society2021
Cross-sectional analysis of associated anomalies and vertebral anomaly location in 1289 surgical congenital scoliosis.
Article in 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. 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.
- Prevalence and Clinical Correlates of Intraspinal and Vertebral Anomalies in Congenital, Adolescent Idiopathic, and New-Onset Scoliosis:Saudi medical journal · 2026Article
- Eccentric cranial traction combined with concave-side distraction: a novel and effective management for correcting congenital cervical scoliosis.Spine deformity · 2026Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis study systematically analyzed and assessed the interrelationships among vertebral anomaly location, congenital scoliosis (CS) type and associated abnormality prevalence.
methodsWe retrospectively extracted medical records of 1289 CS inpatients surgically treated in our institute from January 2010-December 2019. All patients underwent spinal X-ray, CT, MRI, echocardiogram, urogenital ultrasound and systemic physical examination. We analyzed information on demographics, CS type, associated anomalies and vertebral anomaly location.
resultsCervical, thoracic and lumbar vertebral anomalies were found in 5.7%, 78.1% and 33.6% of patients, respectively. 82.7% had one region involved. 59.5% with cervical malformations had mixed defects and 61.1% with lumbar malformations exhibited failure of formation. The musculoskeletal defect prevalence was 28.4%, 19.1% and 9.0% in patients with cervical, thoracic and lumbar anomalies. The intraspinal defect prevalence was 33.4% and 20.7% for thoracic and lumbar anomalies. 86.5% of patients with cervical anomalies had more than one region involved, while 78.1% and 62.2% with thoracic and lumbar anomalies, respectively, had only one region involved.
conclusionsCervical malformations had higher prevalence of mixed defects, musculoskeletal and intraspinal defects and multi-region involved. Thoracic malformations had higher prevalence of intraspinal and musculoskeletal defects and more involvement of only one vertebral region. Lumbar vertebral malformation patients had much lower prevalence of intraspinal and musculoskeletal defects and more involvement of only one vertebral region. Cervical malformation was a risk factor for more associated anomalies and more severe vertebral anomalies, which deserves more attention from surgeons in outpatient clinic.
Indexed as
Identifiers
34235574What 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.