ReviewCureus2025
Does Pelvic Fixation in Neuromuscular Scoliosis Correction Affect Radiological and Functional Outcomes?
Review in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comment on "Does pelvic fixation impact reoperation outcomes for neuromuscular scoliosis surgery? A 10-year matched cohort analysis".Spine deformity · 2026Article
- Authors' Reply to: "Comment on 'Does pelvic fixation impact reoperation outcomes for neuromuscular scoliosis surgery? A 10-year matched cohort analysis'".Spine deformity · 2026Article
- Optimal distal fusion level in patients with neuromuscular scoliosis: a meta-analysis of comparative studies with 1685 patients over 15 years.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Pelvic fixation is commonly used in neuromuscular scoliosis patients with pelvic obliquity (PO) >15°, yet its benefit over shorter constructs remains unclear. This systematic review analyzed five studies comprising 230 patients (120 with pelvic fixation (WPF), 110 without pelvic fixation (WoPF)) to assess radiological, functional, and surgical outcomes. Radiographic correction was similar between groups: Cobb angle improved from 62.8° to 32.4° in WPF vs. 76.7° to 29.4° in WoPF (p = 0.54), and PO correction did not differ significantly (final PO 8.6° vs. 11.5°, p = 0.5). Functional outcomes were heterogeneous; only one study reported a statistically significant benefit in the WPF group (Short-Form Health Survey-36 improvement, p = 0.007), while others using Gross Motor Function Classification System (GMFCS), Caregiver Priorities and Child Health Index of Life With Disabilities, or Bridwell's scores found no advantage. GMFCS data were reported in just 19% of patients, limiting subgroup analysis. Estimated blood loss was substantially higher in WPF (2,851 mL vs. 1,383 mL), though not statistically significant (p = 0.17), with comparable complication rates. Given the heterogeneity in outcome measures, surgical technique, and patient function, routine pelvic fixation cannot be universally recommended. However, it may benefit select subgroups, such as non-ambulatory patients with severe PO or poor trunk control, warranting individualized surgical planning.
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.