ArticleSpine deformity2026
Lumbar, thoracic, and bilateral vertebral body tethering: do surgical outcomes differ?
Article in Spine deformity, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeVBT is increasingly being used in the lumbar spine to preserve mobility. Surgeons have noted differences in complications and outcomes among single thoracic (T), single lumbar (TL/L), and bilateral (B) VBT, but evidence has been limited to small, separate case series. We aim to comprehensively assess complications and outcomes of vertebral body tethering (VBT) for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) in the pediatric population. We hypothesize that the three approaches will have similar curve correction and surgical outcomes, and rates of major complications and reoperations.
methodsA retrospective review was conducted on consecutive AIS patients undergoing VBT between 2015 and 2022 at a tertiary center, all performed by the same surgical team. Data were analyzed at preoperative, first erect (FE), and final follow-up (minimum 2 years postoperative). Inter-screw angles, indicating suspected tether breakage, were measured using a validated deep-learning model.
results133 patients (93 T, 20 B, 20 TL/L) were included with a mean follow-up of 2.8 ± 0.5 years. Groups were demographically similar, differing only in instrumented levels (p < 0.001) and preoperative curve bending (p = 0.027). Operative time was longest in B (355.0 ± 21.3 min; p < 0.0001). EBL varied but was not significantly affected by approach after adjusting for levels (p = 0.272). TL/L showed the best curve correction at FE (23 ± 4° vs. T:31 ± 1°, B:28 ± 1°; p = 0.0026). At final follow-up, curve magnitudes were similar (T:28 ± 8°, B:28 ± 10°, TL/L:23 ± 10°; p = 0.089). No significant differences emerged in suspected tether breakage (T:31.2%, B:40%, TL/L:45%; p = 0.068), major complications (T:3.2%, B:10%, TL/L:5%; p = 0.254), or reoperations (T:10.8%, B:10%, TL/L:5.0%; p = 0.903).
conclusionIn this large series of consecutive VBT cases, no significant differences emerged in tether breakage, major complications, or reoperations among the three approaches. Bilateral tethering required the longest operative time, while TL/L demonstrated superior initial curve correction. Final outcomes were similar, supporting the efficacy and safety of all approaches.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42120787What 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.