ArticleSpine deformity2026
Application value of halo‑pelvic traction in the treatment of severe rigid spinal deformity.
Article in Spine deformity, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comment on "Application value of halo-pelvic traction in the treatment of severe rigid spinal deformity".Spine deformity · 2026Article
- Simulated microgravity-driven mechanical unloading rescues PIEZO1-overexpression-induced growth plate ossification and retards adolescent idiopathic scoliosis.NPJ microgravity · 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
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeComparison of the clinical outcomes of halo-gravity traction (HGT) and halo-pelvic traction (HPT) was performed in the treatment of patients with severe rigid spinal deformity, with the aim of elucidating the clinical value of HGT and HPT in managing such deformities and providing evidence-based recommendations for surgical treatment planning.
methodsA retrospective study was conducted of 20 patients treated at two large tertiary hospitals (2019-2022). All underwent posterior osteotomy correction and were categorized into HGT (n = 14) and HPT (n = 6) groups. Key parameters analyzed included radiographic measures (Cobb angles), pulmonary function tests (before and after traction/surgery), and intraoperative metrics such as blood loss, surgery duration, and osteotomy grade. Health-related quality of life was evaluated using the SRS-22 questionnaire.
resultsBaseline characteristics were comparable between groups. Compared to the HPT group, the HGT group showed significantly lower correction rates in both coronal and sagittal Cobb angles (P < 0.01), longer surgical duration, greater intraoperative blood loss, and higher osteotomy grade (P < 0.05). Improvements in FVC% and FEV1% were significantly smaller in the HGT group (P < 0.001). While both groups showed postoperative gains in SRS-22r scores, the differences between them were not statistically significant. No neurological complications occurred in either group; one case of iliac pin breakage in the HPT group was managed successfully without impacting the surgical outcome.
conclusionBoth HGT and HPT were feasible and safe in the preoperative management of patients with severe rigid spinal deformity. In this limited cohort, HPT was associated with greater angular correction, improved pulmonary function, and reduced intraoperative complexity compared to HGT. While these findings are encouraging, larger prospective studies are warranted to validate the long-term efficacy and safety of HPT and to better inform clinical decision-making in high-risk spinal deformity cases.
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.