ArticleSpine deformity2025
Increased differential rod contouring reduces the effectiveness of surgical correction in patients with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis.
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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate the impact of increasing the differential precontouring angle of concave and convex rods on three-dimensional correction during posterior spinal fusion in patients with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) and determine the threshold beyond which additional contouring yields no further correctional benefit in a computational model.
methodsPatient-specific computational biomechanical models were developed using radiographs from 10 thoracic Lenke 1 AIS patients. Posterior instrumentation included bilateral uniaxial pedicle screws from T4 to L1 and rods of various diameters and materials. First-order simulations of the primary correction maneuver using the rod translation technique were performed using MSC Adams. The effects of varying concave rod precontouring angles on the forces at play and resulting correction in the coronal, sagittal, and axial planes were analyzed.
resultsCoronal plane correction decreased progressively with increasing rod contouring angles (p < 0.05) due to posterior displacement of the rod relative to the spine, reducing coronally-directed torque at the curve apex. Aggressive rod contouring (> 55°) improved sagittal plane correction (thoracic kyphosis), with the benefit depending on presenting kyphosis (p < 0.05). Normo-kyphotic curves showed better outcomes with moderate rod contouring (< 55°), whereas hypo-kyphotic curves required more aggressive bending (55-85°) to restore kyphosis, despite reduced coronal correction. Transverse plane effects from these simulations appeared less influential (p > 0.05). Screw axial forces increased linearly with concave rod bending angle.
conclusionIncreasing concave rod precontouring beyond 35° to 55° yields diminishing coronal plane correction, while offering selective benefit in restoring thoracic kyphosis in hypo-kyphotic AIS patients. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40736867What 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.