ReviewCureus2025
Evaluating Surgical Strategies for Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis: A Meta-Analysis of Posterior Spinal Fusion and Vertebral Body Tethering.
Review in Cureus, 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) is a three-dimensional spinal deformity commonly affecting adolescents worldwide. Surgical management traditionally involves posterior spinal fusion (PSF), which achieves stable deformity correction but may limit spinal motion and growth potential. Vertebral body tethering (VBT) has emerged as a motion-preserving alternative aimed at modulating spinal growth while correcting curvature. This systematic review and meta-analysis compared PSF and VBT in terms of deformity correction, complication and revision rates, and postoperative functional outcomes. Data from multiple clinical studies were analyzed using standardized methods for pooling and evaluating outcomes. Results indicated that PSF generally provides more consistent and reliable curve correction with fewer complications and revisions, while VBT offers advantages in preserving motion and facilitating earlier postoperative recovery. However, VBT demonstrated greater variability in results and a higher likelihood of requiring additional interventions. These findings highlight the need for individualized treatment planning that considers curve severity, skeletal maturity, and long-term functional goals. PSF remains a robust corrective option, whereas VBT represents a promising motion-sparing approach for carefully selected patients. Further research is warranted to refine patient selection criteria and optimize long-term outcomes of non-fusion techniques.
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.