ArticleSpine deformity2026
Is there an added benefit of intraoperative traction to posterior spinal fusion for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis? A systematic review and meta-analysis.
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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSkeletal intraoperative traction (IOT) has been proposed as an adjunct to posterior spinal fusion (PSF) for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) to facilitate deformity correction and reduce perioperative morbidity. However, its clinical benefit remains controversial, with conflicting evidence on radiographic outcomes and safety. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to determine whether skeletal IOT provides added benefit in patients undergoing one-stage PSF for AIS.
methodsA comprehensive search of PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science was performed from inception to September 2025, following PRISMA guidelines. Eligible studies included patients with AIS undergoing one-stage PSF with skeletal IOT versus PSF without IOT. The primary outcomes were coronal main curve correction rate, operative time, intraoperative blood loss, and incidence of intraoperative motor-evoked potential (MEP) changes. Pooled estimates were calculated using common- and random-effects models. Between-study heterogeneity was assessed using the I
resultsEight studies comprising 693 AIS patients were included, of which six were comparative (426 IOT group vs. 267 non-IOT group). Under the common-effect model, IOT was associated with a significantly higher main curve correction rate (MD + 3.62, 95% CI 1.75-5.48) and lower blood loss (MD - 274.1 mL, 95% CI - 540.5 to - 7.6). Neither finding was confirmed under the random-effects model, which revealed extreme between-study heterogeneity for correction rate (I
conclusionsSkeletal IOT does not demonstrate a statistically robust benefit over standard one-stage PSF for AIS when between-study heterogeneity is appropriately accounted for. IOT is associated with a higher incidence of transient intraoperative MEP changes, underscoring the mandatory role of continuous neurophysiological monitoring when this technique is employed. Future large and high-quality prospective studies are needed to further confirm the findings of the present analysis.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42527807What 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.