ArticleSpine deformity2026
Analysis of tether breakages during revision after failed thoracolumbar double-row vertebral body tethering.
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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeVertebral Body Tethering (VBT) yields improving postoperative results. However, tether breakage remains a common complication, especially in thoracolumbar (TL) curves, and can negatively impact the outcome. The pathomechanism behind TL tether breakages is not well understood, yet this knowledge is essential for improving surgical planning. Therefore, the study aimed to investigate the timing and location of tether breakage in double-row (TL) revision cases. MATERIAL: This study performed a descriptive analysis of consecutively explanted double-row implants in TL VBT patients who underwent revision due to tether breakage and for whom photographic documentation was available. A > 5° increase in the interscrew angle on consecutive radiographs suggested tether breakage.
resultsData from 50 instrumented levels in ten patients were available. The UIV ranged from T9 to T11 and the LIV from L3 to L4. Revision surgery was performed, on average, 35 months after the index surgery. The study showed that the > 5° rule identified a higher percentage of segments with both tethers broken (68%) than segments with only one broken tether (54%). There was no difference in the occurrence of anterior (61%) and posterior (62%) tether breakage. The anterior tether broke in the distal segment in all ten cases, while the posterior tether broke in the distal segment in nine out of ten cases.
conclusionThis study showed that the distal segment of the lumbar spine is prone for tether breakage. Fewer breakages were observed in the thoracic segments. Additionally, no clear breakage pattern in relation to implant standing time was observed.
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.