ArticleSpine deformity2025
Curve progression following selective and nonselective spinal fusion for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: are selective fusions stable?
Article in Spine deformity, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Lumbar curve correction is durable at 5 years after thoracic fusion in patients with open triradiate cartilage: a cohort comparison to mature patients.Spine deformity · 2026Article
- Motion preservation and deformity correction in Lenke 1 C adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: selective versus non-selective thoracic fusion.Spine deformity · 2026Article
- Optimizing surgical strategy in Lenke 5 C AIS patients with poor thoracic compensatory ability: is there a role of coronal imbalance?Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe purpose of this study is to compare postoperative outcomes between selective and non-selective fusions longitudinally over the first five postoperative years.
methodsPatient parameters were retrieved from a multicenter, prospective, database. Patients with Lenke 1-6, B and C deformities were included. Patients were stratified into 2 groups: selective fusion (SF), if the last instrumented vertebra (LIV) was at or cranial to the lumbar apex, or non-selective fusion (NSF). Differences in coronal and sagittal radiographic outcomes were assessed with generalized linear models (GLMs) at 1-, 2- and 5- year postoperative outcomes. Five-year postoperative categorical radiographic outcomes, flexibility, scoliosis research society scores (SRS), and reoperation rates were compared between groups. Matched cohorts were created for subgroup analysis.
results416 (SF:261, NF:155) patients, including 353 females were included in this study. The mean preoperative thoracic and lumbar Cobb angles were 57.3 ± 8.9 and 45.3 ± 8.0, respectively. GLMs demonstrated greater postoperative coronal deformity in the SF group (p < 0.01); however, the difference between groups did not change overtime (p > 0.05) indicating a relatively stable postoperative deformity correction. The SF group had a greater incidence of lumbar Cobb ≥ 26 degrees (p < 0.01). The NSF group demonstrated worse forward and lateral flexibility at 5-year postoperative outcome (p < 0.05). There was no difference in postoperative SRS scores between the SF and NSF groups. Reoperation rates were similar between groups.
conclusionSelective fusion results in greater coronal plane deformity; however, this deformity does not progress significantly over time compared to non-selective fusion. Selective spinal fusion may be a beneficial option for a larger subset of patients than previously identified. 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.