ArticleBrain & spine2026
Outcomes of posterior spinal fusion in AIS: A minimally invasive vs. open technique analysis.
Article in Brain & spine, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Posterior spinal fusion is the most popular surgical treatment for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS). Recent innovations in implant designs have facilitated minimally invasive (MISS) approaches. However, these techniques have not yet achieved widespread adoption for deformity correction. Research question: This study aimed to compare surgical, radiologic, and clinical outcomes in AIS patients treated with a minimally invasive transmuscular (MINI-OPEN) approach versus the traditional open (OPEN) approach. Material and methods: This single-center retrospective study analyzed prospectively collected data from the EUROSPINE Spine Tango Registry framework. Inclusion criteria were AIS, posterior fusion, major coronal Cobb angle <80°, and 10-30 years. Complications, blood loss, operative time, length of stay (LOS), and pre- and postoperative radiographs were evaluated. Patients completed the Core Outcome Measures Index (COMI) preoperatively and at 3, 12, and 24 months. Results: Seventy-one OPEN patients were compared with 39 MINI-OPEN patients. Blood loss was significantly lower in the MINI-OPEN group (350.0 (275.0-500.0) vs 1150 (600.0-1625.0)mL), whereas operative time was significantly longer (450 (389.0-522.0) vs 326.0 (259.0-403.0)minutes). LOS was nearly half as long in the MINI-OPEN as in the OPEN group (5.0 (4.0-6.0) vs 9.0 (8.0-11.0)days). Coronal curve correction (median reduction 77% MINI-OPEN vs 75% OPEN) and COMI improvements did not differ significantly between groups. Discussion and conclusion: The MINI-OPEN approach was associated with less blood loss and a shorter hospital stay but longer operative time compared with the OPEN approach while radiologic and patient-reported outcomes were similar. These findings support MINI-OPEN as a feasible soft-tissue-sparing strategy in AIS correction.
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.