ArticleSpine deformity2026
Limited fusion strategy for congenital scoliosis: is it truly one and done?
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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo investigate the rate and risk factors for reoperation following a short-segment fusion strategy for congenital scoliosis (CS).
methodsCS patients treated with posterior fusion were identified and stratified by history of revision surgery. Demographic and pre- and postoperative radiographic data were compared to determine the risk factors for reoperation.
resultsThirty-five patients (mean age 5.0 years; mean follow-up 7.6 years) underwent an average of 3.5 levels fused. Index procedures were performed in the thoracic (49%), thoracolumbar (29%), lumbar (17%), and lumbosacral (6%) regions. Eighteen (51%) patients underwent reoperation at a mean of 5.2 years. Preoperative curve magnitude was significantly lower in patients who did not require reoperation (34.2° vs 66.7°, p < 0.001), with preoperative curves ≥ 45° having a 94% reoperation rate compared to 6% in curves < 45°. Preoperative curve magnitude strongly predicted reoperation (AUC 0.99, 95% CI 0.97-1.00), with 45° as the optimal cutoff (94.4% sensitivity, 94.1% specificity). Larger pre- and postoperative compensatory curves and constructs that did not span both end vertebrae were also risk factors for reoperation (p < 0.05). In multivariate analysis, only greater preoperative curve magnitude retained significance for reoperation (p = 0.028).
conclusionsAlthough short-segment fusion for CS resulted in a 51% reoperation rate, stabilization for 6.2 years with this staged strategy allowed for growth and delayed additional surgery to a later, optimal age. Risk factors for reoperation included preoperative curves ≥ 45° and constructs failing to span both end vertebrae. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.
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.