ArticleSpine deformity2026
Cost of anterior versus posterior spinal instrumented fusion for thoracolumbar (Lenke V/VI) adolescent idiopathic scoliosis.
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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo compare direct costs associated with anterior spinal instrumented fusions (ASIF) and posterior spinal instrumented fusions (PSIF) for thoracolumbar adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS).
methodsA retrospective analysis was conducted of adolescents (ages 10-18 years) who underwent ASIF or PSIF for thoracolumbar AIS by a single surgeon. Demographics, clinical and surgical details, and inpatient post-operative outcomes were analyzed. Direct costs were obtained from medical billing data, including supplies, instrumentation, operating room services, room and board, and ICU admissions.
results17 patients (13 girls; average age 15.3 ± 1.9 years) met inclusion criteria and were analyzed. There were no significant differences in age, major thoracolumbar Cobb angle, or thoracic Cobb angle between groups. PSIF had significantly more instrumented levels (6 ± 0.9 v. 5 levels; p < 0.01) and shorter operative times (308 ± 25.6 min vs. 447 ± 39.2 min; p < 0.01). ASIF incurred higher total costs ($72,174 ± $19,550 v. $66,552 ± $14,019; p = 0.04) and direct costs ($40,161 ± $3,668 v. $34,469 ± $7,846; p = 0.04), largely due to more ICU admissions and greater hospital lengths of stay (LOS). Excluding 2 ASIF patients with prolonged hospitalizations, direct costs between ASIF ($39,990 ± $3,855) and PSIF ($34,469 ± $7,846) were not statistically different (p > 0.05).
conclusionsWhile ASIF had significantly greater direct costs due to more postoperative ICU admissions and longer hospital LOS, exclusion of outliers resulted in similar average direct costs between approaches. ASIF saved one treated level on average. Number of implants, operating room services, ICU admissions and LOS are the principal drivers of cost.
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.