ArticleScientific reports2025
Selective lowest and upper instrumented vertebra for the correction of Lenke type 6C adolescent idiopathic scoliosis.
Article in Scientific reports, 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.
- Vertebral bone quality in patients with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis.Spine deformity · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Retrospective Study. The selection of the upper instrumented vertebra (UIV) and lowest instrumented vertebra (LIV) in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) Lenke type 6C is critical for achieving optimal spinal alignment and preventing post-surgical complications. This study evaluates the radiographic and clinical outcomes of two UIV and LIV selection strategies in patients with AIS Lenke 6C undergoing posterior spinal fusion. A retrospective analysis was conducted on 79 patients treated between 2011 and 2020. Patients were divided into two groups based on LIV and UIV selection: Group A, with LIV at the lower end vertebra (LEV) and UIV at the upper end vertebra (UEV), and Group B, with LIV one level caudal to the LEV (LEV-1) and UIV either one level above or below the UEV (UEV + 1 or UEV-1). Radiographic parameters, including coronal and sagittal balance, and clinical outcomes were compared between the groups. Both groups demonstrated significant improvements in spinal alignment. In Group A, the thoracic and lumbar/thoracolumbar Cobb angles improved from 36.1 ± 6° and 51.3 ± 3° preoperatively to 1.8 ± 0° and 2.8 ± 1° at six months postoperatively, and 1.7 ± 0° and 3.1 ± 2° at the final follow-up. In Group B, the thoracic and lumbar/thoracolumbar Cobb angles improved from 33.6 ± 5° and 51.7 ± 3° preoperatively to 2.6 ± 2° and 3.7 ± 2° at six months postoperatively, and 2.6 ± 2° and 3.7 ± 2° at the final follow-up (P = 0.105). Coronal and sagittal balance parameters showed comparable improvements in both groups. The SRS-22 scores at the final follow-up indicated significant enhancements in all domains, including pain, function, and mental well-being. The selection of UIV and LIV significantly impacts radiographic and clinical outcomes in AIS Lenke type 6C. Both strategies-LIV at LEV with UIV at UEV, and LIV at LEV-1 with UIV at UEV ± 1yielded comparable improvements in spinal alignment and patient-reported outcomes. However, the choice of UIV and LIV should be tailored to individual patient anatomy and surgical goals. This study underscores the importance of careful UIV and LIV selection in optimizing postoperative outcomes for AIS Lenke type 6C patients.
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.