ArticleSpine deformity2025
Apical stress redistribution during anterior vertebral body tethering for thoracic adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: a finite element analysis of a novel surgical technique.
Article in Spine deformity, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeApical stress redistribution (ASR) is proposed to mitigate failure risks after anterior vertebral body tethering for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. It consists in releasing set-screws at peri-apical levels following curve tensioning to redistribute stresses within the construct. This study determines the biomechanical impact and curve correction obtained with ASR.
methodsFinite element models of anterior vertebral body tethering were constructed for three typical scoliotic patients with Lenke 1 curves. ASR was simulated by releasing tension on the cable at the level of the three apical set screws (i.e. untightening three consecutive periapical set screws), followed by retightening of the set screws without further tensioning. Cable tension, implant forces and spine geometry were compared before and after performing ASR.
resultsPeriapical cable tension decreased post-ASR, and ASR also reduced the maximum tensions proximally and distally. Postoperative disc height was similar between conventional and ASR approaches. Apical intervertebral disc stresses were shifted from concave to convex compression intra and postoperatively, with a similar pattern between the conventional and ASR techniques. The ASR technique achieved scoliotic curve corrections of 54%, 68%, and 79%, while the conventional technique resulted in corresponding corrections (54%, 68%, and 80%) for subjects 1, 2, and 3. The periapical coronal curves exhibited similar patterns.
conclusionASR demonstrated promising apical cable and implant forces re-equilibrium compared to the conventional approach. This novel technique did not impair immediate and postoperative curve correction, while maintaining similar apical intervertebral stress distribution. ASR shows potential to modulate growth while reducing maximum cable tension infra- and supra-apical.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39419960What 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.