ArticleSpine deformity2025
Use of the kickstand rod improves coronal alignment and maintains correction compared to control at 2 year follow-up.
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 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.
- A pre-, peri- and postoperative rehabilitation pathway for lumbar fusion surgery (REACT): a nonrandomized controlled clinical trial.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 · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo assess and compare coronal alignment correction at 2 year follow-up in adult spinal deformity (ASD) patients treated with and without the kickstand rod (KSR) construct.
methodsASD patients who underwent posterior spinal fusion at a single-center with a preoperative coronal vertical axis (CVA) ≥ 3 cm and a minimum of 2 year clinical and radiographic follow-up were identified. Patients were divided into two groups: those treated with a KSR and those who were not. Patients were propensity score-matched (PSM) controlling for preoperative CVA and instrumented levels to limit potential biases that my influence the magnitude of coronal correction.
resultsOne hundred sixteen patients were identified (KSR = 42, Control = 74). There were no statistically significant differences in patient characteristics (p > 0.05). At baseline, the control group presented with a greater LS curve (29.0 ± 19.6 vs. 21.5 ± 10.8, p = 0.0191) while the KSR group presented with a greater CVA (6.3 ± 3.6 vs. 4.5 ± 1.8, p = 0.0036). After 40 PSM pairs were generated, there were no statistically significant differences in baseline patient and radiographic characteristics. Within the matched cohorts, the KSR group demonstrated greater CVA correction at 1 year (4.7 ± 2.4 cm vs. 2.9 ± 2.2 cm, p = 0.0012) and 2 year follow-up (4.7 ± 2.6 cm vs. 3.1 ± 2.6 cm, p = 0.0020) resulting in less coronal malalignment one (1.5 ± 1.3 cm vs. 2.4 ± 1.6 cm, p = 0.0056) and 2 year follow-up (1.6 ± 1.0 vs. 2.5 ± 1.5 cm, p = 0.0110). No statistically significant differences in PROMs, asymptomatic mechanical complications, reoperations for non-mechanical complications were observed at 2 year follow-up. However, the KSR group experienced a lesser rate of mechanical complications requiring reoperations (7.1% vs. 24.3%. OR = 0.15 [0.03-0.72], p = 0.0174).
conclusionsPatients treated with a KSR had a greater amount of coronal realignment at the 2 year follow-up time period and reported less mechanical complications requiring reoperation. However, 2 year patient-reported outcomes were similar between the two groups.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39162958What 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.