SynthesisSpine deformity2025
Comparative meta-analysis of vertebral body tethering and posterior spinal fusion in patients with idiopathic scoliosis. Evaluation of radiographic, perioperative, clinical, patient-reported outcomes, and complication rates.
Synthesis in Spine deformity, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Functional, Radiographic, and Patient-Reported Outcomes of Hybrid Fixation Versus Posterior Long Fusion for Double-Major Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Advancing Scoliosis Treatment with Patient-Specific Functionally Graded NiTi-SMA Rods: Key Considerations and Development Objectives.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Surgical treatment for neurofibromatosis type 1-related dystrophic scoliosis in children aged 8 to 11: traditional growing rod or posterior spinal fusion?BMC surgery · 2026Article
- Segmental range of motion of vertebral body tethering: an in-vitro analysis of single-tether, double-tether, and hybrid constructs.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAlthough posterior spinal fusion (PSF) is considered the gold standard for the treatment of idiopathic scoliosis, it has been associated with several limitations. Vertebral body tethering (VBT) offers a motion-preserving alternative, with growing evidence supporting its clinical efficacy.
methodsA comprehensive search of PubMed, Cochrane, Web of Science and Scopus databases was performed to identify comparative studies between VBT and PSF in patients with idiopathic scoliosis. Primary outcomes included major curve correction and postoperative major and minor curve angles. Secondary outcomes included radiographic parameters (shoulder height difference, spinal height gain, coronal balance, thoracic kyphosis, lumbar lordosis), perioperative metrics [length of stay (LOS), estimated blood loss (EBL), operative time, instrumented levels], patient-reported outcomes [Scoliosis Research Society-22 Questionnaire (SRS-22)], complication and revision rates.
resultsSeventeen studies met the inclusion criteria. VBT patients required shorter instrumentations (p < 0.00001). PSF achieved lower postoperative major (p < 0.00001) and minor curve angles (p = 0.00001), better coronal balance (p = 0.005) and superior major curve correction from baseline (p < 0.00001), but with questionable clinical significance. VBT demonstrated greater lumbar flexion capacity (p < 0.00001), superior shoulder balance (p < 0.00001) and better outcomes in SRS-22 pain (p = 0.02), satisfaction (p = 0.03) and function (p = 0.02) at two-year follow-up. VBT also had shorter operation times (p = 0.0007), less blood loss (p < 0.00001), but higher complication (p = 0.0002) and revision rates (p < 0.00001). No difference detected in lumbar lordosis (p = 0.08), thoracic kyphosis (p = 0.15), SRS-22 self-image (p = 0.20) and total (p = 0.12), lumbar side bending (p = 0.81), axial rotation (p = 0.43) and hospital stay (p = 0.7).
conclusionsPSF demonstrates superior coronal spinal alignment, along with lower complication and revision rates. In contrast, VBT offers better preservation of spinal motion, improved shoulder balance, enhanced early quality of life, and reduced blood loss and operative time, while requiring shorter instrumentations. Treatment decisions should be individualized, taking into account patient-specific factors. Long-term outcome data are needed to guide clinical practice.
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.