Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40821241›Full record

ReviewCureus2025

Does Pelvic Fixation in Neuromuscular Scoliosis Correction Affect Radiological and Functional Outcomes?

Rodrigo Muscogliati, Rawan Masarwa, Elie Najjar, Mohammad Daher, Mostafa Meshneb, Ankur Goswami, Ahmed A Hassan, Nasir A Quraishi, Mohammed S Patel

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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 · 2026
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Rodrigo MuscogliatiHull York Medical School, University of Hull, Hull, GBR.
Rawan MasarwaCentre for Spinal Studies and Surgery, Queens Medical Centre, Nottingham University Hospitals National Health Service (NHS) Trust, Nottingham, GBR.
Elie NajjarCentre for Spinal Studies and Surgery, Queens Medical Centre, Nottingham University Hospitals National Health Service (NHS) Trust, Nottingham, GBR.
Mohammad DaherCentre for Spinal Studies and Surgery, Queens Medical Centre, Nottingham University Hospitals National Health Service (NHS) Trust, Nottingham, GBR.
Mostafa MeshnebCentre for Spinal Studies and Surgery, Queens Medical Centre, Nottingham University Hospitals National Health Service (NHS) Trust, Nottingham, GBR.
Ankur GoswamiCentre for Spinal Studies and Surgery, Queens Medical Centre, Nottingham University Hospitals National Health Service (NHS) Trust, Nottingham, GBR.
Ahmed A HassanCentre for Spinal Studies and Surgery, Queens Medical Centre, Nottingham University Hospitals National Health Service (NHS) Trust, Nottingham, GBR.
Nasir A QuraishiCentre for Spinal Studies and Surgery, Queens Medical Centre, Nottingham University Hospitals National Health Service (NHS) Trust, Nottingham, GBR.
Mohammed S PatelCentre for Spinal Studies and Surgery, Queens Medical Centre, Nottingham University Hospitals National Health Service (NHS) Trust, Nottingham, GBR.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

functional outcomesneuromuscular spinepelvic fixationpelvic obliquityradiological outcomes

Identifiers

PMID40821241
PMCPMC12357528

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.