ArticleSpine deformity2025
Analysis of the risk factors for tether breakage after two-row vertebral body tethering (2RVBT) in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS).
Article in Spine deformity, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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
purposeVertebral body tethering (VBT) offers a fusion-less alternative for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) patients, with tether breakage being a common concern, particularly in single-row VBT. Limited data exist on double-row VBT's impact on tether breakage. This study evaluates a two-row vertebral body tethering (2RVBT) technique, comparing cases with and without broken tethers in patients with over 2 year follow-up.
methodsA single-center, retrospective review (2019-2022) included AIS patients who underwent mini-open thoracoscopic-assisted 2RVBT. Inclusion criteria were idiopathic scoliosis < 65° flexible curves, residual post-operative curves < 30°, and ≥ 2 year follow-up. Patients were divided into broken-tether (BT) and non-broken-tether (NBT) groups. Radiographic measures included thoracic (T) and thoracolumbar (TL) Cobb angles, coronal balance, L5 tilt, and sagittal parameters. Tether breakage was defined by > 5° change in screw angulation, with or without associated loss of correction.
resultsAmong 109 patients (NBT = 94, BT = 15), the overall tether breakage rate was 13.7%. The BT group had significantly larger pre-operative TL Cobb angles (53.4 ± 14.0° vs 43.7 ± 13.8°, p = 0.02), greater TL correction (- 36.2 ± 9.1° vs -2 3.7 ± 15.9°, p = 0.002), and higher post-operative coronal imbalance (21.2 ± 14.6 mm vs 11.9 ± 9.4 mm, p = 0.049). They also had significantly lower skeletal maturity (mean Risser stage 2.0 ± 1.1 vs 3.2 ± 1.3, p = 0.019; Sanders 4.0 ± 1.5 vs 5.4 ± 2.0, p = 0.019). Most broken tethers did not require revision, but some cases underwent re-tethering or fusion.
conclusionDouble tether constructs may reduce the rate of tether breakage following VBT. The main risk factors for tether breakage following double tether VBT are residual post-operative coronal imbalance, larger corrections in the lumbar spine, large rigid thoracic curves, and skeletal immaturity. Furthermore, most broken tethers did not require revision, which may indicate that curves maintained appropriate correction post-breakage due to the functional lifespan of double tether constructs. Although these are preliminary findings that must be supported with further multicenter studies that include single-tether constructs, these findings should be taken into consideration when indicating patients for VBT.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40658347What 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.