Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42572053›Full record

ReviewEuropean spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society2026

Beyond the incision: Does release extent matter in congenital muscular torticollis? A systematic review.

Hussein Akil, Zeinab Nahle, Rami Abou Faour, Rodrigo Muscogliati, Weronika Nocun, Shakil Patel, Spyros Komaitis, Ibrahim Haddad, Masood Shafafy, Elie Najjar

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Hussein AkilDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, American University of Beirut Medical Center, Beirut, Lebanon. husseinakill@yahoo.com.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0006-2110-6164
Zeinab NahleFaculty of Medicine, Lebanese American University, Beirut, Lebanon.
Rami Abou FaourOrthopaedic Surgery Department, University of Balamand, Beirut, Lebanon.
Rodrigo MuscogliatiCentre for Spinal Studies & Surgery, Queen's Medical Centre, Nottingham University Hospital NHS Trust, Nottingham, UK.
Weronika NocunCentre for Spinal Studies & Surgery, Queen's Medical Centre, Nottingham University Hospital NHS Trust, Nottingham, UK.
Shakil PatelCentre for Spinal Studies & Surgery, Queen's Medical Centre, Nottingham University Hospital NHS Trust, Nottingham, UK.
Spyros KomaitisCentre for Spinal Studies & Surgery, Queen's Medical Centre, Nottingham University Hospital NHS Trust, Nottingham, UK.
Ibrahim HaddadOrthopaedic Surgery Department, Bellevue Medical Center, Beirut, Lebanon.
Masood ShafafyCentre for Spinal Studies & Surgery, Queen's Medical Centre, Nottingham University Hospital NHS Trust, Nottingham, UK.
Elie NajjarCentre for Spinal Studies & Surgery, Queen's Medical Centre, Nottingham University Hospital NHS Trust, Nottingham, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo compare clinical outcomes after unipolar versus bipolar sternocleidomastoid (SCM) release for congenital muscular torticollis (CMT), and to describe how patient age, chronicity, and postoperative rehabilitation varied across studies and may have contributed to between study differences.

methodsFollowing PRISMA guidelines, 17 observational studies were included, comprising 382 surgical procedures (unipolar 228; bipolar 154). The primary outcome was achievement of a global good-excellent clinical result using validated composite scoring systems (Lee, Cheng-Tang, Tanabe, or Lee-Kang). Secondary outcomes were recurrence and complications. Comparative quantitative synthesis was restricted to studies reporting both techniques within the same cohort and extractable technique-specific data. For recurrence, comparative quantitative synthesis was feasible in two cohorts. For global good-excellent outcome, head-to-head data were too sparse and confounded for a robust pooled comparison, and evidence remained descriptive. Heterogeneity was assessed using I².

resultsOnly a small number of studies provided extractable head-to-head comparisons. In these cohorts, no statistically significant difference was observed between unipolar and bipolar release in achieving a good-excellent global clinical outcome, and recurrence rates did not differ significantly between techniques, although confidence intervals were wide and events were sparse. Across single-arm cohorts, both techniques were associated with high rates of good-excellent outcomes and low recurrence, with greater variability observed in bipolar cohorts that more frequently included older or neglected cases. Complications were uncommon overall and were predominantly minor; technique-stratified reporting suggested a higher frequency of minor complications following bipolar release. Where reported, cervical alignment and range of motion improved substantially after both procedures, with no consistent radiographic advantage of one technique over the other. Across studies, postoperative rehabilitation intensity and patient chronicity appeared to influence durability of correction at least as much as release extent.

conclusionWithin the limits of available observational evidence, unipolar and bipolar SCM release yield comparable global clinical outcomes with low recurrence and complication rates. No consistent comparative advantage of greater release extent was demonstrated. Between-study differences may also reflect variation in patient age, deformity chronicity, and postoperative rehabilitation. Comparative certainty remains limited by small head-to-head cohorts, heterogeneous outcome definitions, and incomplete arm-level reporting.

Indexed as

BipolarMeta analysisSternocleidomastoidSystematic reviewTorticollisUnipolar

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.