ArticleSpine deformity2024
Revision of Harrington rod constructs: a single-center's experience with this homogenous adult spinal deformity population at a minimum 2-year follow-up.
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 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
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 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate radiographic and clinical outcomes following revision surgery after HRC fusions.
methodsSingle-institution, retrospective study of patients revised following HRC with minimum 2-year follow-up post-revision. Demographics, perioperative information, radiographic parameters, complications, and Oswestry disability index (ODI) scores were collected. Radiographic parameters included global alignment, coronal and sagittal measurements pre and postoperatively, as well as final follow-up time points.
results26 patients were included with a mean follow-up of 3.3 ± 1.1 years. Mean age was 55.5 ± 7.8 years, BMI 25.2 ± 5.8, and 22 (85%) were females. Instrumented levels increased from 9.7 ± 2.8 to 16.0 ± 2.2. Five (19.2%) patients underwent lumbar pedicle subtraction osteotomies, and 23 (88.4%) had interbody fusions. Patients significantly improved in all radiographic parameters at immediate and final follow-up (p < 0.005), except for thoracic kyphosis and pelvic incidence (p > 0.05). Correction was maintained from immediate postop to final follow-up (p > 0.05). 20 (76.9%) of patients experienced a complication at some point within the follow-up period with the most common being a lumbar nerve root deficit (n = 7). However, only one patient had a nerve root deficit at final follow-up, that being a 4/5 unilateral anterior tibialis function. 5 (19.2%) patients required further revision within a mean of 1.8 ± 1.1 years. On average, patients had an improvement in ODI score by final follow-up (35.6 ± 16.8 vs 25.4 ± 19.8, p = 0.035).
conclusionPatients revised for HRCs significantly improve, both clinically and radiographically by final follow-up. This group did have a propensity for distal lumbar root neurological issues, which were common but all patients except for one, recovered to full strength by two-year follow-up.
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.