ArticleSpine deformity2026
Growing construct forces in early-onset scoliosis: How do TGR and VEPTR compare?
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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionGrowing construct expansion surgeries in the setting of early-onset scoliosis (EOS) involve surgeon's feel to determine the optimal amount of distraction force to maximize correction and spinal length gained without compromising anchor integrity. Growing construct designs may require different amounts of distraction force to lengthen the spine or chest wall depending on the device used and various patient factors. Understanding these variations could guide appropriate force levels for the rational design for next-generation remote/external distraction devices and ultimately patient/deformity-specific lengthening forces. AIM/
objectivesThe purpose of this study was to determine distraction force levels for expansion events in traditional growing rods (TGRs) and vertical expandable prosthetic titanium rib (VEPTR) constructs across patients with various anchor attachment points and etiologies of EOS.
methodsWith IRB approval, two different distraction devices (VEPTR distractor and TGR/rod distractor) were outfitted with electronic strain gauges to measure distraction force. Force data were recorded at a rate of 40 Hz during each surgery via a laptop connected to a PowerLab 8/35 data acquisition system. After each surgery, the distractor was validated on a custom calibration device. The data collected were then analyzed to determine the maximum force and average force during every distraction.
resultsFrom February 2019 to June 2023, a total of 146 in vivo distractions were collected on 52 patients with VEPTRs and 28 in vivo distractions were collected on 9 patients with traditional growing rods. TGR procedures required significantly higher forces than VEPTR (437.89 N vs 349.10 N, p < 0.001).
conclusionModification of two different distraction devices with electronic strain gauges identified differences in distraction force between traditional growing rods and VEPTR constructs during expansion surgeries in children with EOS. Our findings highlight that implant type and potentially other factors may play significant roles in the amount of force required for lengthening the spine and chest wall. Current market implant technology (MCGR maximum force of 187 N) is likely underpowered compared to traditional technology across all construct types and disease classifications. These insights should inform the development of next-generation remote lengthening construct design.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41689725What 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.