ArticleSpine deformity2025
Anterior release is not needed to restore kyphosis in moderate AIS with hypokyphosis.
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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe purpose of this study is to evaluate if AR offers improved 3D kyphosis restoration during PSF for hypokyphosis in moderate AIS (< 70° coronal cobb), where the decision for AR is likely driven by sagittal concerns.
methodsA multicenter pediatric spine registry was queried for hypokyphotic (< 10°) Lenke 1-4 AIS patients aged < 20 years with > 2-year surgical follow-up. Coronal curves were limited to < 70°. A linear mixed model was created to predict 2-year 3D kyphosis by treatment and pre-op 3D kyphosis, while controlling for age, sex, thoracic coronal deformity and flexibility, osteotomy use, implant characteristics, surgery recency, and surgeon.
results1384 patients were included with 53 (3.8%) undergoing PSF + AR. Mean preop 3D kyphosis was similar between PSF and PSF + AR groups (- 3.7° vs. - 0.5°; p = 0.08). PSF-AR had similar 2-year 3D kyphosis (23.0° [95% CI 20.5-25.4°] vs. 23.3° [22.9-23.6°]) and correction (26.7° [23.3-29.9°] vs. 23.7° [23.3-24.2°]) compared to PSF. When controlling for covariates, the models demonstrated no difference between approach (p = 0.058) or interaction of approach and preop 3D kyphosis (p = 0.31). Post-hoc power analysis showed an adequate sample size to detect a difference of 5° between approaches. PSF + AR had longer surgical times (324 vs. 266 min, p < 0.001) though no significant increase in overall complications (17% vs. 12.4%) compared to PSF alone.
conclusionIn AIS patients with coronal curve < 70° and 3D hypokyphosis of 10 to - 40°, treatment with PSF + AR did not improve 2-year sagittal correction more than PSF alone. Surgeon identity and surgery recency influenced post-operative kyphosis more than any other patient or surgical factor.
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.