ArticleSpine deformity2024
Double major curvature treated with vertebral body tethering of both curves: how do outcomes compare to posterior spinal fusion?
Article in Spine deformity, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeVertebral body tethering (VBT) is a non-fusion alternative to posterior spinal fusion (PSF). There have been few reports on VBT of two curvatures. We aim to compare the radiographic outcomes between VBT and PSF in patients with double curvatures in which both curves were instrumented.
methods29 AIS patients matched by Lenke, age (± 2 years), triradiate cartilage closure status, major Cobb angle (± 8°), and T5-T12 kyphosis (± 10°). Variables were compared using Wilcoxon rank-sum tests, Student's t tests, and chi-Square. Clinical success was defined as major curve < 35°.
resultsGroup baseline demographics were similar. Major thoracic (T) curve types had significantly better major (VBT 51.5 ± 7.9° to 31.6 ± 12.0° [40%] vs. PSF 54.3 ± 7.4° to 17.4 ± 6.5° [68%]; p = 0.0002) and secondary curve correction in the PSF group. 71% of major T VBT patients were clinically successful versus 100% of PSF. Major thoracolumbar (TL) curve types experienced comparable major (VBT 52.3 ± 7.0° to 18.3 ± 11.4° (65%) vs. PSF 53.0 ± 5.2° to 23.8 ± 10.9° (56%); p = 0.2397) and secondary curve correction. 92% of major TL VBT patients were clinically successful versus 75% in the PSF group. There was no difference in T5-12 kyphosis or lumbar lordosis between groups for any curve type. There were 4 patients (13.8%) with major complications in the VBT group compared to 0 (0%) in the PSF.
conclusionPatients with double major AIS who underwent VBT with major T curve types had less correction than PSF; however, those with major TL curves experienced similar radiographic outcomes regardless of procedure. Complications were greater for VBT.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38285163What 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.