ArticleSpine deformity2025
Risk of proximal junctional kyphosis after revision of growing rod constructs.
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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionFor early-onset scoliosis (EOS) patients with growth-friendly implants, posterior distraction is a known contributor to proximal junctional kyphosis (PJK). Rib-based proximal fixation is thought to potentially reduce the risk of PJK compared to spine-based anchors. However, the effect of revising proximal rib-based implants to rib vs. spine-based implants on PJK has not yet been investigated. HYPOTHESES: (1) Patients converted from rib-based to spine-based proximal anchors (RTS) have a higher risk of PJK two years post-revision compared to those revised to rib-based anchors (RTR). (2) Revising the upper instrumented vertebra (UIV) to a lower level increases the risk of PJK at two years post-revision compared to revising to a higher or same level.
methodsIn this retrospective cohort study of EOS patients with rib-based growing constructs undergoing revision surgery with a minimum 2-year follow-up, we assessed pre-revision, post-revision, and 2-year follow-up radiographs. We excluded patients lacking lateral radiographs and attachment data and conducted descriptive analyses.
results280 subjects were included, with an average age of 7.2 years at revision; RTS patients were slightly older (8.6y vs 7.2y), and 51% female. At 2 years, 32% of all patients developed PJK. This risk was higher in RTS patients compared to RTR patients (42.8% vs 30.2%, p = 0.17). RTS patients had a greater pre-revision total spine height (p = 0.02), a more negative sagittal balance at 2 years (p = 0.01) and were predominantly male (p = 0.08) compared to RTR. Of the factors associated with a greater risk of PJK, proximal anchor conversion from rib-to-spine had the highest predictive value of PJK development (OR 2.23, p = 0.04). While statistically significant, there was no clinical difference in risk at 2 years of developing PJK among patients revised to a lower level compared to those revised to a higher or same level (32.1% vs 32.5% vs 30.9%, respectively; p = 0.05).
conclusion32% of all subjects developed PJK at a 2-year follow-up. The risk of PJK in RTS patients was 40% higher than in RTR patients. While this did not reach statistical significance to the 0.05 level, due to the associations of risk established by literature and replicated in this study, and the magnitude of this difference, we believe these results to be clinically significant. We intend to re-evaluate this population in the future as more data becomes available. With no demonstrated risk in revision levels, these results should guide providers in revision decision-making in growing rods.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40576947What 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.