ArticleJB & JS open access
Redefining Success and Characterizing Midterm Growth Modulation: Analysis of Radiographic Outcomes in 2 Years Following Vertebral Body Tethering.
Article in JB & JS open access. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Vertebral body tethering (VBT) offers fusionless correction for idiopathic scoliosis, yet midterm growth modulation remains poorly characterized. This study established a clinically relevant success criterion and characterized growth modulation kinetics with associated predictors. Methods: This multicenter prospective study enrolled patients with idiopathic scoliosis with Sanders stage ≤7A, preoperative fulcrum-bending flexibility rate ≥50%, and ≥2-year follow-up after VBT. Parameters were collected before surgery and at 7 postoperative time points. Two-year success was defined as Cobb angle <35° (group 1) and correction rate (CR) ≥50% without overcorrection (Group 2). Group 3 included cases with an instrumented Cobb angle <35° but CR <50%. Curves were further classified as undercorrection (CR <50%), overcorrection (negative curve), and short-term clinical success (same as group 2) at 2 years postoperatively. Results: Thirty-eight patients (50 curves, mean age 11.9 ± 1.17 years; 89.5% female) were analyzed. Coronal CR was 63.2% at 24 months. T2-12 kyphosis (p = 0.637), thoracolumbar kyphosis (p = 0.104), lumbar lordosis (p = 0.869), and sacral slope (p = 0.091) remained unchanged. While pelvic obliquity improved at 12 months (2.1° vs. 1.6°, p = 0.001) and trended toward recurrence at 24 months (2.1° vs. 1.8°, p = 0.142), the difference was below the minimally clinically important difference. Apical (11.3° vs. 6.8°) and upper end vertebral (8.5° vs. 2.8°) rotation improved significantly, while lower end vertebral rotation remained unchanged. Although no significant differences were found between group 1 (n = 39) and group 2 (n = 25) in CR and postoperative revisions, among curves under group 1 but not group 2 (group 3, n = 14), a significantly higher revision rate was observed compared with group 2 (28.6% vs. 4.0%, p = 0.047). Eighty-four percent of successful operations under the new criterion remained successful at the 3.4-year follow-up. The change in correction (Δcorrection) diverged at 3 to 6 months postoperatively. Overcorrection was associated with greater flexibility, a younger Risser sign, lower body mass index (14.5 ± 0.86 kg/m Conclusion: VBT effectively corrects coronal and axial deformity. A short-term success criterion based on a Cobb angle CR ≥ 50% without overcorrection better reflects a favorable biological response than the <35° benchmark at 2 years. Skeletally immature, lean patients with high flexibility and continued correction beyond 6 months may signal overcorrection risk. Level of Evidence: Prognostic Level II. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
Identifiers
What 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.