ArticleSpine deformity2026
Toward biomechanically optimized intraoperative correction in lumbar vertebral body tethering.
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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo identify the appropriate intraoperative correction in lumbar vertebral body tethering (VBT) to optimize outcomes and to avoid under- or over-correction at skeletal maturity by accounting for preoperative deformity size and stiffness, body weight, and skeletal maturity.
methodsFifteen cases of pediatric idiopathic scoliosis (average lumbar Cobb angle: 48° (40-59°) were used to build validated 3D patient-specific finite element models, which were calibrated to various preoperative characteristics. Physics-based numerical simulations of VBT were performed in the intraoperative lateral decubitus position, with actual instrumented vertebrae (T10-T12 to L2-L4). Intraoperative correction levels (from 50 to 90%) were simulated under four growth remaining scenarios corresponding to Sanders Stage (SS) 3A, 3B, 4, and 5. Postoperative growth and growth modulation were simulated over a 2-year period. The targeted result was a curve at 10° ± 5° at 2-year follow-up.
resultsSimulations indicated that achieving the targeted two-year coronal correction required significantly lower intraoperative correction in SS 3A compared with the more mature stages (3B, 4, 5) (p < 0.01). No significant differences were observed among SS 3B, 4, and 5. The corresponding target intraoperative corrections were 65% (53-75%), 72% (60-80%), 73% (60-80%), and 73% (68-80%) for SS 3A, 3B, 4, and 5, respectively. Separately, body weight and spinal flexibility did not statistically impact the intraoperative target. However, their interaction significantly influenced the intraoperative correction targets in SS 3A and 3B cases (p < 0.05).
conclusionOptimal intraoperative correction in lumbar VBT appears to depend primarily on preoperative skeletal maturity status. In patients who are more immature, body weight and spinal flexibility should also be considered when selecting correction targets. This simulating tool could be used as a planning tool to provides a pathway toward precise, individualized intraoperative correction strategies aimed at improving the reliability of VBT outcomes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42481883What 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.