ArticleJournal of craniovertebral junction & spine
Selection of Lower instrumented vertebra in early-onset scoliosis at index growth rod insertion- can we predict distal add-on at graduation surgery?
Article in Journal of craniovertebral junction & spine. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: There are still no consensus criteria on how to select the lower instrumented vertebra (LIV) for growing rods (GRs) at index surgery. The aim was to evaluate whether the criteria used for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis fusion adapts to early-onset scoliosis (EOS). Materials and Methods: Retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data in a consecutive cohort of patients with EOS treated with GR, expanding from index surgery to 2 years after graduation. The LIV was analyzed regarding its relation to the stable vertebra (SV), substantially touched vertebra (STV), and non-substantially touched vertebra (NSTV). Failure of LIV selection was considered when revision surgery with distal add-on was needed during follow-up. Results: A total of 13 patients met the inclusion criteria. The mean chronological age was 9.16 years (at index surgery), 12.9 years (at graduation), and 14.9 years (at final follow-up). The most frequent LIV at index surgery was L4 in four cases, closely followed by L2 and L3 with three cases each at the index surgery. The designation of SV, STV, and non-STV (NSTV) was based on standard anteroposterior radiographs. There were six cases where the LIV at growth rod insertion was the SV. Three of these did not require revision of the LIV at graduation. The remaining three which required revision required addition of one level. There were six cases in which the LIV was higher than the SV. Four of these were one level higher, i.e., STV, and two of these NSTV. Those which were at STV did not require revision of the LIV at graduation. Of the two where the initial LIV was NSTV, one required revision down to four levels below, while the other required extension by one level. Conclusions: For EOS, whenever an SV or STV was chosen, the incidence of revision of LIV was about 30%. The revision required was a distal add-on by one level. If the LIV was any higher than STV, the revision required a distal add-on to more than one level. Choosing a STV or SV as the distal foundation for the construct of EOS correction possibly leads to lesser rates of add-on phenomenon.
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.