ArticleClinical spine surgery2025
Correction of L5 Tilt in 2-Row Vertebral Body Tethering Versus Posterior Spinal Fusion for Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis.
Article in Clinical spine surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Anterior Vertebral Body Tethering Versus Posterior Spinal Fusion in Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Comparative Outcomes.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
STUDY
designSingle-center retrospective cohort study.
objectiveTo compare the correction of fractional curve and L5 tilt in 2RVBT versus PSF with LIV in the lumbar spine. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Vertebral body tethering, an AIS fusion-alternative, avoids rigid constructs, allowing for lower instrumented vertebra (LIV) selection. Single-tether constructs break, but mini-open thoracoscopic assistant double-row vertebral body tethering (2RVBT) reduces this. Limited comparative studies exist with posterior spinal fusion (PSF).
methodsRetrospective analysis of AIS correction surgeries with lumbar LIV using preoperative and minimum 2-year postoperative imaging. Patients were divided into 2RVBT or PSF groups. Data included age, Riser, UIV, LIV, instrumented levels, and revision rates. Radiographic analyses included preoperative and postoperative main curve Cobb (MCC), secondary curve Cobb (SCC), fractional curve Cobb (FCC), and L5 tilt.
resultsNinety-nine patients participated (49 in 2RVBT, 50 in PSF). Preoperatively, secondary CC differed significantly (2RVBT: 44.6±10.4 degrees vs. PSF: 39.5±11.8 degrees, P =0.026), but not L5 tilt, MCC, or FCC. Postoperatively, MCC (2RVBT: 25.7±12.3 degrees vs. PSF: 19.5±7.4 degrees, P =0.003) and SCC (2RVBT: 18.0±8.4 degrees vs. PSF: 14.5±6.6 degrees, P =0.012) varied. Preoperative to postoperative changes in MCC (2RVBT: -32.0±11.3 degrees vs. PSF: -37.2±13.3 degrees, P =0.044) and L5 tilt (-13.8±9.0 degrees vs. PSF: -8.1±6.8 degrees, P =0.001) differed. Revision rates were similar (2RVBT: 2.0%, PSF: 4.0%, P =0.57). In 2RVBT, 3 tethers broke, 1 revision occurred for a broken tether, and 1 pleural effusion needed thoracocentesis. In PSF, 1 superficial infection needed surgery, and 1 revision was for add-on phenomenon. After PSM for Lenke classification, 54 patients remained (27 in each group). At 2 years, 2RVBT showed less MCC correction (-30.8±11.8 degrees vs. -38.9±11.9 degrees, P =0.017), but greater L5 tilt correction (-14.6±10.0 degrees vs. -7.5±6.0 degrees, P =0.003).
conclusionsThis study with a minimum 2-year radiographic follow-up demonstrates that 2RVBT results in greater L5 tilt correction when compared with posterior spinal fusion after PSM for Lenke classification and similar rates of revision surgery. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level 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.