ArticleSpine deformity2025
Failure to replace removed growth friendly implants results in deteriorating radiographic outcomes.
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
introductionManagement of early onset scoliosis (EOS) patients can require growth-friendly surgery to manage spinal deformity in children too immature for a definitive fusion. There is limited literature on outcomes for patients with failed growing constructs requiring removal of implants (ROI).
methodsWe studied EOS patients from an international registry undergoing removal of growth-friendly implants, comparing early re-implantation (within 12 months of ROI) to observation-only. We examined demographic data and radiographic measurements with a significance level of p < 0.05.
resultsSixty-four patients met the inclusion criteria for radiographic analysis: 53 had early re-implantation and 11 were observed. There were no significant differences between the groups in age at index, ROI, or etiology. Pre-ROI, observation and re-implantation groups had similar coronal Cobb angles (55° vs 47°, p = 0.35) and similar time from index procedure to ROI. However, at two years post-ROI, the observation group had a larger coronal Cobb angle than the re-implantation (81° vs 53°, p = 0.003). In the re-implantation group, 16 (30%) patients progressed ≥ 5° vs 7 (64%) in the observation group (p = 0.04). The re-implantation group had a smaller difference in major Cobb angle between post-ROI and two years post-ROI (-2° vs 12°, p = 0.01). The re-implantation group had no significant progression in the major Cobb angle at two years post-ROI compared to immediate post-ROI (55° vs 53°, p = 0.36), while the observation group increased by about 13° (68° vs 81°, p = 0.03), resulting in a total increase of more than 25° from pre-ROI.
conclusionOur interim data strongly suggest that promptly replacing removed implants stabilizes curves in this population of EOS patients. Timely re-implantation should be a priority, when possible, to enhance outcomes, despite technical challenges for some patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40613981What 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.