SynthesisJournal of orthopaedic surgery and research2025
Efficacy and safety of long fusion versus short fusion in degenerative scoliosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Single-Segment Spinal Decompression and Fusion With Selective Nerve Root Block in Adult Degenerative Scoliosis: A Retrospective Comparative Study.Orthopaedic surgery · 2026Article
- Percutaneous endoscopic interlaminar decompression for degenerative scoliosis in the elderly: a safe and effective minimally invasive alternative.Frontiers in surgery · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of long fusion versus short fusion in patients with degenerative scoliosis.
methodsDatabases were systematically searched up to June 2024. The authors applied Review Manager 5.4 to manage the data and perform the analysis.
resultsAfter the selection of 611 studies from electronic databases, 13 studies were eligible for inclusion. These 13 studies included 1261 patients: 534 patients underwent long fusion, and 727 underwent short fusion. At baseline, the Cobb angle, coronal imbalance, and sagittal imbalance were greater in the long fusion group. There was no difference in the VAS back, Cobb angle, ODI, hospital stay, revision surgery, adjacent segment degeneration, sacral slope, pelvic tilt, Cobb angle, lumbar lordosis, coronal balance, or sagittal balance at the final follow-up. The surgery time, complication rates, and amount of blood loss were greater in the long fusion group.
conclusionsLong fusion leads to superior radiographic improvement, particularly in reducing the Cobb angle and reconstructing coronal and sagittal balance. The long fusion group was inferior in terms of increased surgical time, more blood loss, and higher postoperative complication rates. At the final follow-up, there was no difference in the clinical or radiographic outcomes between the long and short groups. For patients with a large coronal Cobb angle and significant coronal or sagittal imbalance, long fusion surgery should be performed. On the other hand, for patients whose milder deformities and clinical symptoms are the main concern, short fusion surgery is recommended.
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.