Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36871254›Full record

ArticleEuropean spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society2023

An investigation of range of motion preservation in fusionless anterior double screw and cord constructs for scoliosis correction.

Per Trobisch, Jonathan M Mahoney, Emily K Eichenlaub, Christopher L Antonacci, Laury Cuddihy, Dhara B Amin, Dominic Razo-Castaneda, Mattan R Orbach, Joshua P McGuckin, Brandon S Bucklen and 2 more

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
3.2field-weighted citation impact, top 8% of its field
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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. The Effects of Vertebral Body Tethering on the Intervertebral Discs and Facet Joints: A Numerical Analysis.International journal for numerical methods in biomedical engineering · 2025
    Article
  4. Article
  5. The efficacy of anterior vertebral body tethering in lenke type 6 curves for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis.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 · 2024
    Article
  6. Radiological Outcomes of Re-tethering for Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis: A 2-to-5-year Follow-Up Case Series After Index Vertebral Body Tethering Failure.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 · 2024
    Article
  7. 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

12 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Per TrobischEifelklinik St. Brigida, Simmerath, Germany.
Jonathan M MahoneyMusculoskeletal Education and Research Center, A Division of Globus Medical Inc., 2560 General Armistead Ave., Audubon, PA, 19403, USA.
Emily K EichenlaubMusculoskeletal Education and Research Center, A Division of Globus Medical Inc., 2560 General Armistead Ave., Audubon, PA, 19403, USA.
Christopher L AntonacciInstitute for Spine and Scoliosis, Lawrenceville, NJ, USA.
Laury CuddihyInstitute for Spine and Scoliosis, Lawrenceville, NJ, USA.
Dhara B AminMusculoskeletal Education and Research Center, A Division of Globus Medical Inc., 2560 General Armistead Ave., Audubon, PA, 19403, USA.
Dominic Razo-CastanedaSchool of Biomedical Engineering, Science and Health Systems, Drexel University, Philadelphia, PA , USA.
Mattan R OrbachSchool of Biomedical Engineering, Science and Health Systems, Drexel University, Philadelphia, PA , USA.
Joshua P McGuckinMusculoskeletal Education and Research Center, A Division of Globus Medical Inc., 2560 General Armistead Ave., Audubon, PA, 19403, USA. jmcguckin@globusmedical.com.ORCID 0000-0001-6426-4054
Brandon S BucklenMusculoskeletal Education and Research Center, A Division of Globus Medical Inc., 2560 General Armistead Ave., Audubon, PA, 19403, USA.
M Darryl AntonacciInstitute for Spine and Scoliosis, Lawrenceville, NJ, USA.
Randal R BetzInstitute for Spine and Scoliosis, Lawrenceville, NJ, USA.
National Audubon Society · USDrexel University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo evaluate the motion-preserving properties of vertebral body tethering with varying cord/screw constructs and cord thicknesses in cadaveric thoracolumbar spines.

methodsIn vitro flexibility tests were performed on six fresh-frozen human cadaveric spines (T1-L5) (2 M, 4F) with a median age of 63 (59-to-80). An ± 8 Nm load was applied to determine range of motion (ROM) in flexion-extension (FE), lateral bending (LB), and axial rotation (AR) in the thoracic and lumbar spine. Specimens were tested with screws (T5-L4) and without cords. Single (4.0 mm and 5.0 mm) and double (4.0 mm) cord constructs were sequentially tensioned to 100 N and tested: (1) Single 4.0 mm and (2) 5.0 mm cords (T5-T12); (3) Double 4.0 mm cords (T5-12); (4) Single 4.0 mm and (5) 5.0 mm cord (T12-L4); (6) Double 4.0 mm cords (T12-L4).

resultsIn the thoracic spine (T5-T12), 4.0-5.0 mm single-cord constructs showed slight reductions in FE and 27-33% reductions in LB compared to intact, while double-cord constructs showed reductions of 24% and 40%, respectively. In the lumbar spine (T12-L4), double-cord constructs had greater reductions in FE (24%), LB (74%), and AR (25%) compared to intact, while single-cord constructs exhibited reductions of 2-4%, 68-69%, and 19-20%, respectively.

conclusionsThe present biomechanical study found similar motion for 4.0-5.0 mm single-cord constructs and the least motion for double-cord constructs in the thoracic and lumbar spine suggesting that larger diameter 5.0 mm cords may be a more promising motion-preserving option, due to their increased durability compared to smaller cords. Future clinical studies are necessary to determine the impact of these findings on patient outcomes.

Indexed as

ScoliosisSpinal FusionBiomechanical PhenomenaBone ScrewsCadaverHumansLumbar VertebraeRange of Motion, ArticularFusionlessGrowth modulationMotion preservationScoliosisVertebral body tethering

Identifiers

PMID36871254
OpenAlexW4323255488

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.