ArticleSpine deformity2026
Distribution of curve flexibility in AIS: a multicenter study of 5,267 patients.
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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeCurve flexibility plays an important role in the treatment of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS). This study aimed to describe the patterns and variability of curve flexibility in a large patient cohort.
methodsFive thousand two hundred sixty-seven surgical patients from an international AIS registry were analyzed. Curve flexibility was calculated as percent change from the major Cobb angle on bending radiographs. Associations between curve flexibility and demographic, clinical, and radiographic parameters were assessed using non-parametric tests and linear correlations.
resultsThoracic curves were less flexible than lumbar curves (35.5% vs. 49.2%, p < 0.001). Thoracic flexibility decreased by Lenke type: Lenke type 1 (40.4%), Lenke 2 (32.9%), Lenke 3 (26.8%), and Lenke 4 (19.3%) (p < 0.001). Lenke lumbar and sagittal modifiers further influenced thoracic flexibility with lumbar "C" modifiers (p < 0.001) and hypokyphotic "-" modifiers (p < 0.001) having the greatest flexibility. Lumbar curve flexibility also varied by Lenke subtype: Lenke 3 (39.2%), Lenke 4 (37.1%), Lenke 5 (56.1%), and Lenke 6 (44.3%) (p < 0.001). Flexibility showed negative correlations with BMI (p = 0.020), Cobb angle (p < 0.001), and deformity angle ratio (DAR) (p < 0.001). Open triradiate cartilage was associated with slightly greater thoracic flexibility (38.4% vs. 35.5%, p = 0.007). Female sex correlated with increased lumbar flexibility (51.7% vs. 43.9%, p < 0.001).
conclusionThis large cohort provides detailed insight into the distribution of curve flexibility in AIS patients, highlighting inherent biomechanical differences among curve types and patient demographics. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42286388What 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.