ArticleChildren (Basel, Switzerland)2025
Final Fusion Strategies in Early-Onset Scoliosis: Does Implant Density Make a Difference After Magnetically Controlled Growing Rod Treatment?
Article in Children (Basel, Switzerland), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Posterior spinal fusion with pedicle screw-based constructs in osteogenesis imperfecta: a systematic review of surgical and radiographic outcomes.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2026Pooled it
- Radiological and surgical outcomes after graduation to posterior spinal fusion surgery following magnetically controlled growing rod treatment for early-onset scoliosis: a systematic review and single-arm meta-analysis.European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie · 2026Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
objectivesEarly-onset scoliosis (EOS) frequently requires growth-friendly interventions, such as magnetically controlled growing rods (MCGRs), followed by definitive spinal fusion upon skeletal maturity. The optimal implant density (ID) for final posterior spinal fusion in these patients remains controversial. This study aimed to compare the radiographic, surgical, and economic outcomes associated with high-density (HD) versus low-density (LD) screw constructs in EOS patients previously treated with MCGRs undergoing definitive fusion.
methodsThis retrospective study included 27 EOS patients who underwent definitive posterior spinal fusion between January 2017 and September 2022. Participants were categorized into two groups: HD (n = 13) and LD (n = 14). Primary outcomes included coronal and sagittal radiographic parameters assessed at early postoperative and final follow-up visits (minimum of 2 years). The secondary outcomes analyzed were major postoperative complications (grade ≥ IIIB according to Clavien-Dindo-Sink Classification [CDSC]), operative time, blood loss, hospital stay length, and total implant costs.
resultsBaseline characteristics between the HD and LD groups were comparable. Early postoperative radiographic assessment demonstrated significantly greater thoracic kyphosis (16.3 ± 7.6° vs. 10.9 ± 14.4°,
conclusionsLD constructs provided comparable long-term radiographic and clinical outcomes to HD constructs, with significantly lower implant-related costs. Despite initial superior kyphosis correction in HD constructs, this benefit diminished by the final follow-up. These findings support a selective, lower-density screw placement strategy to minimize costs and surgical complexity without compromising patient outcomes in EOS undergoing definitive spinal fusion.
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.