ArticleSpine deformity2026
Can use of a stiffer rod obviate the need for posterior column osteotomy in Lenke I and II curves? A prospective, multi-center study.
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 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeSurgical correction of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) involves correction of coronal plane deformity to establish coronal and sagittal balance. Posterior column osteotomies (PCOs) are frequently employed but have been associated with complications. We hypothesize that utilization of a novel geometry rod construct will achieve comparable coronal and sagittal correction in AIS surgery regardless of whether PCOs are performed.
methodsA single-arm, prospective, multi-center study was completed to evaluate the primary curve and thoracic kyphosis (TK) correction in Lenke 1 and 2 AIS subjects as a function of rod stiffness. Baseline, initial postoperative, and 2-year postoperative radiographs were used. Results from pooled literature were used for comparison.
resultsFifty-five patients were included; 22 had PCOs (PCO group) and 33 did not (NPCO group). There were no differences between cohorts in terms of baseline demographics or radiographic features. Between the NPCO and PCO cohorts, no differences were seen in preoperative primary Cobb (58.0 vs 61.6, p = 0.1427), Flexibility (%) (41.4 vs 36.8, p = 0.2453), ultimate post-op primary curve size (17.0 vs 17.1, p = 0.9501) or degree of correction (pre-post, %) (70.6 vs 72.2, p = 0.4806). Those with PCOs had increased blood loss (NPCO: %EBV: 13.5, 543.0 cc, PCO: %EBV: 17.8, 717.6 cc, p = 0.0260), transfusion volume (NPCO: 171.7 mL, PCO: 429.9 mL, p = 0.0009), and surgical time (NPCO: 266.2 min, PCO: 297.1 min, p = 0.0434). Compared to previously published literature (LIT), our cohort had slightly higher average preoperative TK (Study = 21.5°, LIT: 19.8°, z = 0.1041) and postoperative TK (Study All = 23.4°, LIT = 21.7°, z = 0.0399 and Study PCO 24.7°, z = 0.0237).
conclusionsIn our cohort, curves treated using a novel rod with increased rigidity, comparable corrections were achieved regardless of whether PCO was performed. We noted a higher intraoperative EBL and longer operative times when PCOs were utilized. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: II.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41315166What 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.