ReviewEuropean spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society2026
Optimal distal fusion level in patients with neuromuscular scoliosis: a meta-analysis of comparative studies with 1685 patients over 15 years.
Review in European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe decision of whether to extend fixation to the pelvis or stop at the lumbar spine during neuromuscular scoliosis (NMS) surgery is still controversial. While pelvic fixation (PF) provides enhanced stability, it may increase surgical morbidity. On the other hand, lumbar fusion short of the pelvis (FSP) offers reduced complexity but risks loss of correction over time.
objectiveTo systematically review and meta-analyze the comparative outcomes of PF versus FSP in patients with NMS undergoing posterior spine fusion (PSF).
methodsWe conducted a comprehensive search of the PubMed and Ovid databases for English-language studies published between 2010 and 2025. We included comparative studies evaluating PF and FSP in patients with NMS undergoing PSF. We extracted data on radiographic correction, correction loss, perioperative parameters, complications, revision rates, and functional outcomes. We assessed the risk of bias using the MINORS tool and performed pooled analyses according to the PRISMA guidelines.
resultsA total of 10 studies involving 1685 patients were included. There were no significant differences in estimated blood loss, hospital stay, scoliosis correction, pelvic obliquity correction, overall complication rates, or reoperation rates between the PF and FSP groups (p > 0.05). However, PF was associated with a longer operative time (mean difference [MD] -0.92; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.25, 1.58; I²=87%, p = 0.007), though it provided better PO maintenance at the final follow-up (MD -3.68; 95% CI: -6.1, -1.26; I²=58%, p = 0.003). Though evidence was limited, functional outcomes and quality-of-life scores were similar between groups.
conclusionBoth PF and FSP achieve satisfactory deformity correction in patients with NMS undergoing PSF. PF is recommended for patients with severe PO (> 15°-17°), dependent sitting balance, or spastic neuromuscular conditions. FSP is suitable for patients with more flexible curves, sufficient trunk control, and PO < 15°. Individualized surgical planning based on radiographic and functional assessments is essential to optimizing outcomes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42141191What 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.