SynthesisNeurosurgical review2025
Comparison between anterior and posterior approaches in selective instrumentation of juvenile idiopathic scoliosis in children and adolescents: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Neurosurgical review, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study analyzes data comparing anterior and posterior selective instrumentation to determine the optimal surgical approach for Juvenile Idiopathic Scoliosis correction. Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. We consulted the databases MEDLINE, CENTRAL, LILACS, and Embase on January 20th, 2024. We included cohort, case-control, and clinical trial studies involving patients aged 21 or younger with Juvenile Idiopathic Scoliosis (JIS) treated with selective instrumentation, comparing anterior and posterior approaches. We excluded studies with combined anterior and posterior instrumentation, thoracoscopic-assisted approaches, and vertebral body tethering. We assessed the studies' risk of bias using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Our meta-analyses compared Cobb angle correction rates and secondary intra- and postoperative outcomes. The analysis included 15 cohort studies (928 patients) 514 underwent anterior instrumentation and 414 posterior instrumentation. No deaths occurred. The average operative time was 260.7 minutes for anterior and 190.4 minutes for posterior procedures. Average blood loss was 398.4 mL (anterior) and 413.4 mL (posterior). Cobb angle correction rates were 61.7% (anterior) and 66% (posterior). Meta-analyses revealed no significant differences in Cobb angle correction rates between groups (p = 0.774, 95% CI: -0.331 to 0.444; p = 0.365, 95% CI: -0.23 to 0.62). Anterior and posterior selective instrumentation achieve similar Cobb angle correction rates, and the choice for JIS in patients under 21 years remains highly individualized. Both approaches show comparable outcomes in correction, bleeding, and SRS-22 scores. Posterior instrumentation reduces operative time and hospital stays, while anterior instrumentation requires fewer instrumented vertebrae. The lack of clinical trials and incomplete outcome reporting may limit some analyses, though supplementary meta-analyses mitigated these constraints.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40332593What 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.