ArticleEuropean spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society2026
Biplanar vs. uniplanar pedicle subtraction osteotomy for rigid adult spinal deformity: trading safety for correction?
Article in European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society, 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
17 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposePedicle subtraction osteotomies (PSOs) are well-established for rigid sagittal deformities, but the efficacy and safety of biplanar PSOs (BiPSOs) remain uncertain. This study aims to evaluate whether BiPSOs compromise sagittal correction or elevate surgical morbidity or complication rates.
methodsA retrospective analysis of a prospective multicentric adult spinal deformity database included patients who underwent a single Schwab-3/4 PSO with at least two years of follow-up. BiPSOs were defined by segmental angular changes (SAD) greater than 5° in both the sagittal and coronal planes, while uniplanar (UPSOs) had SAD greater than 5° in one plane. Demographic, surgical, and outcome variables were compared.
resultsThe study included 33 BiPSOs and 123 UPSOs. No differences were found for baseline demographic characteristics. UPSOs were more common in patients with prior spinal surgery (57.6% vs. 80.5%) with less L4-S1 lordosis (29.5° vs. 22°), meanwhile BiPSOs' patients showed worse preoperative coronal alignment (C7-SVL 37.2 vs. 25.2 mm) and greater Cobb angles (44.6° vs. 24°). Comparable coronal and sagittal alignment were obtained postoperatively according to C7-CSVL (19.1 vs. 17.0 mm) and GAP Score (5.1 vs. 5.6 points, - 48.6% vs. - 43.8%). Comparable surgical aggressiveness including surgical time, blood loss, or hospitalization stays was observed. Neurological complications were comparable between the groups (15.2% BiPSOs vs. 19.5% UPSOs), with no significant differences in motor deficits. Overall complication rates and patient-reported outcomes were comparable, though BiPSOs had higher satisfaction at final follow-up.
conclusionsBiPSOs effectively treat rigid biplanar deformities, achieving optimal coronal correction without compromising sagittal alignment restoration or increasing surgical morbidity and neurological risks.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41495301What 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.