ArticleNeurospine2022
Evaluation and Comparation of a Novel Surgical Technique and Hemivertebra Resection to the Correction of Congenital Cervical Scoliosis in Lower Cervical and Cervicothoracic Spine.
Article in Neurospine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cervical scoliosis surgery: understanding neurological complications and defining prevention strategies. A biomechanical study and narrative review.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
- Eccentric cranial traction combined with concave-side distraction: a novel and effective management for correcting congenital cervical scoliosis.Spine deformity · 2026Article
- One-stage posterior-only radical hemivertebra resection and short-segment fusion for congenital cervicothoracic scoliosis: a cohort study.BMC surgery · 2026Article
- How to Apply the Sequential Correction Technique to Treatment of Congenital Cervicothoracic Scoliosis: A Technical Note and Case Series.Orthopaedic surgery · 2025Article
- Article
- Curve Behavior of Distal Segments After Posterior-Only Hemivertebra Resection for Congenital Cervicothoracic Scoliosis.Orthopaedic surgery · 2025Article
- Early one-stage posterior-only surgery for congenital cervicothoracic scoliosis in children: medium- and long-term follow-up.Frontiers in surgery · 2025Article
- Posterior-only approach cervical hemivertebrectomy and short fusion with pedicle screws in young children with cervical scoliosis: case report and technical note.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
- Progressive coronal caudal curve after corrective osteotomies for congenital cervicothoracic scoliosis: incidence and predictors.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
- Design, fabrication, and evaluation of single- and multi-level 3D-printed non-covering cervical spinal fusion surgery templates.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2024Article
- Minimally invasive spine surgery strategy for congenital cervicothoracic scoliosis in children: Less blood loss and shortened segmental fusions/fewer pedical screws.Frontiers in surgery · 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
9 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo report concave-side distraction technique to treat congenital cervical scoliosis in lower cervical and cervicothoracic spine. To evaluate and compare clinical and radiographic results of this procedure with classic hemivertebra resection procedure.
methodsThis study reviewed 29 patients in last 13 years. These patients were divided into convex-side resection group (group R) and concave-side distraction group (group D). Radiographic assessment was based on parameter changes preoperatively, postoperatively and at last follow-up. Demographic data, surgical data and complications were also evaluated and compared between the 2 groups.
resultsIn group R, mean age was 8.9 ± 3.3 years and follow-up was 46 ± 18 months. Operation time and blood loss averaged 500 ± 100 minutes, 703 ± 367 mL. In group D, mean age was 9.9 ± 2.8 years and follow-up was 34 ± 14 months. Operation time and blood loss averaged 501 ± 112 minutes, 374 ± 181 mL. Structural Cobb angle was corrected from 29.4° ± 12.5° to 5.3° (2.1°-18.1°) (p = 0.001) and 33.7° ± 14.1° to 12.8° ± 11.4° (p < 0.001) in groups R and D. Compensatory Cobb angle had a spontaneous correction rate of 59.6% (40.0%-80.8%) and 59.7% ± 23.0% in groups R and D. Mandibular incline, clavicle angle and spine coronal balance were significantly improved at last follow-up in both groups. All correction rates were not statistically different between groups. However, group D had significant less blood loss (p < 0.001) and operation time (p = 0.004) per vertebra than group R. Seven patients developed C5 nerve root palsy and recovered by 6 months of follow-up.
conclusionBoth surgical procedures are safe and effective in correcting congenital cervical scoliosis. But concave-side distraction technique has less blood loss and time-consuming during surgery, which provides a better option for the treatment of congenital cervical scoliosis.
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.