ArticleSpine deformity2023
Thoracic posterior spinal instrumented fusion vs. thoracic anterior spinal tethering for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis with a minimum of 2-year follow-up: a cost comparison of index and revision operations.
Article in Spine deformity, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- Posterior spinal fusion versus vertebral body tethering for paediatric scoliosis: a meta-analysis of comparative studies.Spine deformity · 2025Pooled it
- Reducing postoperative morbidity by diminishing chest tube drainage utilizing tranexamic acid following vertebral body tethering for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis.Spine deformity · 2025Article
- Adolescent vs. Young Adult Idiopathic Scoliosis patients: how different are their two year postoperative radiographic and clinical outcomes?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 · 2025Article
- Article
- Vertebral body tethering: An alternative to posterior spinal fusion in idiopathic scoliosis?Frontiers in pediatrics · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo compare direct costs of index and revision operations of thoracic posterior spinal instrumented fusion (TPSIF) and thoracic anterior spinal tethering (TAST) for adolescent idiopathic thoracic scoliosis in children.
methodsChildren (ages 11-18 years) who underwent TPSIF and TAST (2/2013-9/2019) were reviewed. Follow-up < 2 years and cervical instrumentation and/or instrumentation of a lumbar level at L3 or below were exclusion criteria. Patient demographics, radiographic curve magnitude, index operations and postoperative data, as well as indications for revisions/readmissions were collected. Direct costs were identified and compared for index and revision operations during follow-up.
resultsOne hundred and four patients were included (TPSIF: 78; TAST: 25). TAST procedures were performed in children significantly younger and for smaller curve magnitudes. They had significantly fewer levels instrumented, shorter operating room (OR) times, and less estimated blood loss (EBL). After operation, a significantly higher percentage of TAST were admitted to ICU. Hospital length of stay (LOS) was similar between groups. Index operations' average direct costs were significantly higher for TAST than TPSIF ($52,947 v. $46,641; p = 0.02). Major cost drivers for both groups were implants, OR services, post-anesthesia care unit (PACU), and room/board. Revisions following TAST were more frequent than for TPSIF (36 v. 11.5%). Majority of TPSIF revisions were for junctional deformity. Curve progression and overcorrection were most common reason for TAST revisions. Average direct costs for revisions/readmissions were similar between groups (TPSIF: $28,485 v. TAST: $27,590; p = 0.46).
conclusionsIndex operations' average direct costs were statistically similar between TPSIF and TAST for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Major cost drivers were implants, OR services, PACU, and room/board. TAST index operations' direct costs and associated direct costs for implants and room/board were significantly higher, while their anesthesia and OR services were significantly lower than TPSIF. TAST revisions were for overcorrection and curve progression, while TPSIF revisions were most commonly for junctional deformity. Overall average direct costs for revisions were similar despite revision rates being higher for TAST. 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.