ArticleSpine deformity2026
Impact of cephalad versus caudal lumbar lordosis correction on spinal shape and outcomes of complex deformity spine surgery.
Article in Spine deformity, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
23 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo compare the impact of lumbar lordosis correction achieved by cephalad versus caudal distribution on radiographic alignment and surgical outcomes among adult spinal deformity (ASD) patients.
methodsPatients who underwent ASD surgery with uppermost instrumented vertebrae (UIV) at or above L1, had preoperative pelvic incidence-lumbar lordosis (PI-LL) > 10°, and had full-body radiographs available were included. Eligible patients were categorized by the focus of lordosis correction: caudal (L4-S1 lordosis between 35 and 45°) and cephalad lordosis-based correction. Patient demographics, preoperative and 2 years spinopelvic alignment and PROMs, and 2 years postoperative surgical complications were compared.
resultsIn total, 187 (111 caudal and 76 cephalad) patients were included, with mean age of 66.2 years, 78.6% female, and mean frailty score of 3.6. Caudally-restored patients often had an upper thoracic UIV, sacrum/ilium LIV, longer length of fusion, and no lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) while cephaladly-restored patients had two or more LLIFs above L4 (p < 0.001). Preoperatively, there were no significant differences in radiographic alignment and PROMs between the two groups (p > 0.02). Two years postoperatively, caudally-restored patients had higher L1-S1 LL (p = 0.015) and L4-S1 LL (p < 0.001), and lower PI-LL (p = 0.039) and SVA (p = 0.001). In addition, they had higher SRS-22 activity (p = 0.045), pain (p = 0.047), appearance (p = 0.046), and total (p = 0.016) scores. Finally, they had lower rates of sensory deficits (p < 0.001), motor deficits (p = 0.003), implant failure (p = 0.092), and reoperation (p = 0.020).
conclusionCaudal lordosis-based correction of spinal deformity patients was associated with higher PROMs and lower rates of neurologic deficits, implant failure, and revisions at 2 years. These findings, while subject to unmeasured confounding, indicate that great caution should be taken when considering cephalad-based correction of ASD.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41099916What 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.