ArticleSpine deformity2026
Shilla growth guidance vs. distraction-based constructs for severe, early-onset congenital scoliosis treated with 3-column osteotomy.
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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeIn severe, congenital early-onset scoliosis (EOS), surgery seeks maximal 3D correction, halted progression, and preserved spinal growth with minimal interventions. Distraction-based constructs (DBCs) aim for major correction and growth, but often require repeated surgeries. Shilla growth guidance surgery (SGGS) offers apical correction with fewer lengthenings. Limited data compare these techniques in the setting of a three-column osteotomy (3CO). This study compares radiographic and clinical outcomes of 3COs instrumented with DBC and SGGS for severe congenital EOS.
methodsA multicenter database identified patients with congenital EOS who underwent a 3CO with SGGS or DBC. Prospectively collected clinical and radiographic data were analyzed retrospectively. All patients had a minimum of 2-years of follow-up. Data were measured at preoperative, postoperative, 2-year follow-up, and pre-definitive fusion timepoints. The cohort included 32 patients: 12 SGGS and 20 DBC.
resultsMean age at index surgery was similar between groups (SGGS: 5.3 years; DBC: 4.3 years), as was mean follow-up (SGGS: 4.1 years; DBC: 5.7 years). SGGS patients underwent fewer total surgeries (mean 2) compared to DBC (mean 4; p = 0.035). Rates of unplanned reoperations (UPRORs) trended toward significance (SGGS: 2; DBC: 4.6; p = 0.087). DBC patients underwent a mean of 6.9 lengthenings. Preoperative coronal deformity was similar between groups, but final correction was greater with SGGS (43° vs. 59°, p = 0.025). Postoperative T1-S1 spinal growth was greater for SGGS (11.2 mm/year vs 2.1 mm/year, p = 0.04). Complication rates were similar (SGGS: 7 patients, 58%; DBC: 14 patients, 70%), with comparable causes.
conclusionsThis is the first study to compare SGGS and DBC with 3COs for congenital EOS. SGGS achieved greater deformity correction, higher observed T1-S1 growth/year, and required fewer interventions. Complication and UPRORs were similar, though UPROR rates trended lower with SGGS. These findings should be considered when selecting SGGS vs. DBC to protect the 3CO in congenital EOS, supporting shared decision-making with families.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42481884What 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.