ArticleSpine deformity2025
Zones where reduced implant density leads to correction loss after scoliosis surgery for Lenke 1A adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: a multicenter study.
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
17 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeInvestigate zones where implant density should not be reduced in posterior spinal fusion (PSF) for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) Lenke type 1A curves.
methods126 consecutive patients (118 female and 8 male; mean age: 15.1 ± 2.2 years) with Lenke type 1A AIS who underwent PSF using pedicle screw constructs were included. Correction loss which was calculated using immediately postoperative and 2-year postoperative Cobb angle. Implant density was assessed by dividing the instrumented levels into four zones each on the concave and convex sides. The risk factors for significant correction loss were examined using logistic regression analysis. For convex apical zone, correction loss was compared among the three groups of low (0-59%), medium (60-99%), and high (100%) implant density.
resultsMultivariate analysis revealed the apical zone of the convex side (Odds ratio [OR] 1.27; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.01-1.59; P = 0.04) and the peri-apical zone of the convex side (OR 1.33; 95% CI 1.11-1.59; P = 0.002) as independent predictors of significant correction loss. In the convex apical zone, the median (interquartile range) correction loss of the low implant density, medium implant density, and high implant-density groups was 4.8° (1.5°), 5.3° (0.8°), and 2.2° (0.3°), respectively. The median difference was 2.6° (P = 0.048) between the low implant density and high implant-density group and 3.1° (P < 0.001) between the medium implant density and high implant-density group.
conclusionIn PSF for AIS Lenke 1A, low implant density in the convex apical zones were significant factors affecting correction loss at 2 years postoperatively. However, the difference in correction loss between groups may not be large enough to consider clinically meaningful. Prospective studies of longer term outcomes are needed to determine whether these results are clinically important.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39527175What 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.