ArticleFrontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology2025
For severe and rigid adult idiopathic scoliosis, does an optimal extent of posterior intervertebral release exist? A finite element analysis.
Article in Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology, 2025. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The surgical management of severe, rigid adult idiopathic scoliosis (AdIS) is challenging. While posterior intervertebral release (PIVR) is used to enhance correction, the optimal number of release segments is unknown. This study aimed to identify the optimal PIVR strategy by evaluating the biomechanical effects of varying release levels. Methods: A patient-specific finite element (FE) model of a Lenke 2A + AdIS spine (T1-sacrum, main thoracic curve 84°) was created and validated. Six surgical scenarios were simulated: instrumentation-only (M1), Ponte osteotomy alone (M2), and M2 combined with four different PIVR strategies (M3-M6). Simulated corrective forces were applied, and outcomes, including Cobb angle correction and von-Mises stress on vertebrae and implants, were analyzed and compared. Results: A targeted 4-level PIVR centered on the apex (M5) achieved the greatest main thoracic curve correction, reducing the Cobb angle from 84° to 34.88° (a 58.5% correction rate). A more extensive 6-level release (M6) proved less effective (38.99°, 53.6% correction rate). Model M5 also produced the most significant reduction in peak von-Mises stress on vertebrae (15.9% decrease vs. M2) and pedicle screws (32.9% decrease vs. M2). Conclusion: A selective, 4-level PIVR strategy provides superior deformity correction and a more favorable stress environment than a more extensive release. These findings challenge the "more is better" paradigm, providing a biomechanical rationale for an "optimal" rather than "maximal" release approach in severe rigid AdIS.
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.