ArticleSpine deformity2026
Efficacy of the spring distraction system for different etiologies of early onset scoliosis: evaluating an evolving treatment concept.
Article in Spine deformity, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04021784 (Limited-efficacy Testing of Spring Distraction System), which is not on this 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.
Limited-efficacy Testing of Spring Distraction System (SDS) and a Bilateral One Way Rod (NEMOST) for Early Onset Neuromuscular Scoliosis (BiPOWR)
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
purposeEarly onset scoliosis (EOS) is a challenging condition that often requires "growth-friendly" implants to control the curve and accommodate spinal growth, especially in young patients with severe curves. The spring distraction system (SDS) was developed to support growth without the need for repeated lengthenings. This prospective cohort study aimed to compare the performance of the SDS between patients with different EOS etiologies.
methodsWe analyzed all SDS patients with a minimum of two-year follow-up. We measured curve correction, sagittal parameters, spinal growth, complications and unplanned return to the OR (UPROR) and compared these outcomes between different etiological groups. Differences between pre- and postoperative were compared with a mixed repeated-measures ANOVA. Differences between postoperative and later follow-up were compared using linear mixed models. Complications and UPROR rates were compared with a Kaplan-Meier survival analysis.
resultsSixty-four patients were included (14 congenital, 41 neuromuscular, and 9 idiopathic). Mean age at surgery was 8.4 ± 1.7 years. Follow-up was 3.7 ± 1.4 years. Correction was maintained for congenital and neuromuscular patients. In idiopathic patients, Cobb angle increased during follow-up (3.6°/year). T1-S1 growth was 7.4 mm/year (idiopathic), 8.9 mm/year (congenital), and 9.8 mm/year (neuromuscular). Fifty-nine complications occurred (mostly implant-related), corresponding to a complication rate of 0.22/patient/year (congenital), 0.26/patient/year (neuromuscular) and 0.27/patient/year (idiopathic). Forty-two UPRORs were recorded, corresponding to an UPROR rate of 0.19/patient/year (congenital), 0.20/patient/year (neuromuscular) and 0.07/patient/year (idiopathic).
conclusionThe SDS performs well across EOS etiologies in terms of curve correction, spinal growth, and complication/UPROR rates. Idiopathic patients had less sustained correction. Complication rates were comparable, idiopathic patients had the lowest UPROR rate.
trial registrationGRADS study (NL55705.041.16). BiPOWR study (NCT04021784).
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.