ArticleSpine deformity2026
Treatment of Lenke 5 curves with short versus long posterior fusion.
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
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionAdolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis (AIS) patients with a Lenke 5 curve pose a unique challenge due to their distinct alignment characteristics and the ambiguity surrounding whether to include the compensatory thoracic curve in the fusion construct. The aims of this study are to evaluate radiographic, alignment, and patient-reported outcome characteristics of Lenke 5 patients undergoing long vs. short posterior spinal fusion.
methodsA total of 277 Lenke 5 AIS patients were classified by surgical approach. Long fusion (LF) was defined as the upper instrumented vertebra (UIV) at levels T5 and above. Short fusion (SF) was defined as UIV at T9 or caudal. Patients were analyzed pre-operatively and at 2-year follow-up.
results159 (57%) underwent SF, while 118 (43%) underwent LF. The median number of levels fused was 6 in SF group, and 12 in LF group. Preoperatively, there were significant differences in the SF vs. LF groups in magnitude of: upper thoracic curve [8° ± 6° vs. 12° ± 9°, (p < 0.000)]; main thoracic curve [25° ± 9° vs. 35° ± 11° (p < 0.000)]; and thoracic curve on bending film [13° ± 7° vs. 16° ± 6°, (p < 0.001)]. Preoperative thoracic apical translation to CSVL (TAT) was greater in LF (p < 0.000), while T2-T12 kyphosis was lower (32° vs. 38°, p < 0.000). At the 2-year follow-up, thoracic curves improved from 25° ± 9° to 18° ± 9° (SF) and from 35° ± 11° to 15° ± 7° (LF), p = 0.005. Thoracic kyphosis increased in both groups: from 38° ± 12° to 42° ± 13° (SF) and from 32° ± 15° to 36° ± 12° (LF), p < 0.000. Multivariable Logistic regression (pseudo R
conclusionLenke 5 patients with larger thoracic and lumbar curve magnitude and greater thoracic apical translation were more likely to undergo LF. Both SF and LF groups demonstrated significant curve correction and improved patient reported outcomes. There were no significant differences in patient reported outcomes (PRO)s between long and short fusion cohorts.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42426408What 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.