Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42704457›Full record

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

Sagittal alignment outcomes following two-row vertebral body tethering versus posterior spinal fusion in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: a multicenter two-year study.

Abel De Varona-Cocero, Brian Bueno, Djani Robertson, Fares Ani, Alexander Kucherina, Constance Maglaras, Tina Raman, Themistocles Protopsaltis, Juan Carlos Rodriguez-Olaverri

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article 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

9 authors.

Abel De Varona-CoceroThe Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University, Brown University, Providence, USA. abel_de_varona@brown.edu.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0008-9128-3566
Brian BuenoDepartment of Orthopedics, Spine, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York, USA.
Djani RobertsonDepartment of Spine Surgery, San Diego Spine Foundation, San Diego, USA.
Fares AniDepartment of Orthopedics, Spine, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0968-4950
Alexander KucherinaDepartment of Orthopedics, Spine, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York, USA.
Constance MaglarasDepartment of Orthopedics, Spine, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York, USA.
Tina RamanDepartment of Orthopedics, Spine, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York, USA.
Themistocles ProtopsaltisDepartment of Orthopedics, Spine, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York, USA.
Juan Carlos Rodriguez-OlaverriDepartment of Orthopedics, Spine, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York, USA. juan.rodriguez-olaverri@nyulangone.org.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

STUDY

designMulticenter retrospective cohort study. PURPOSE: To compare 2-year sagittal alignment outcomes between two-row vertebral body tethering (2RVBT) and posterior spinal fusion (PSF) in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS).

backgroundPSF remains the gold standard for AIS correction; however, concerns regarding motion loss and adjacent segment disease have encouraged development of fusionless techniques such as vertebral body tethering (VBT). While VBT has demonstrated promising coronal correction, evidence regarding its effects on sagittal alignment is limited.

methodsNinety-nine AIS patients (49 2RVBT, 50 PSF) with ≥ 2-year follow-up were analyzed. Radiographic parameters included sagittal vertical axis (SVA), cervical sagittal vertical axis (cSVA), cervical lordosis (CL), pelvic tilt (PT), L4-S1 lordosis, T1 pelvic angle (TPA), and pelvic incidence-lumbar lordosis mismatch (PI-LL). The minimal clinically important difference (MCID) was prespecified as 5 mm for sagittal axis and 10° for lordosis, with pediatric thresholds of 3 mm and 5° based on AIS literature. Institutional Review Board approval was obtained at all participating centers. Inclusion criteria were AIS diagnosis, age ≤ 16 years at surgery, lumbar instrumentation, and ≥ 2-year follow-up. Exclusion criteria included neuromuscular/syndromic scoliosis and prior spinal surgery.

results2RVBT patients were younger, more skeletally immature (Risser 1.6 ± 0.8 vs. 2.6 ± 1.8, p = 0.001), and more frequently female (97% vs. 84%, p = 0.048). At baseline, sagittal parameters differed between groups, with lower SVA, cervical lordosis, and L4 to S1 lordosis, and higher cSVA in the 2RVBT group. At 2 years, 2RVBT maintained greater L4-S1 lordosis (36.0° vs. 18.3°, p = 0.001) and cSVA (3.4 mm vs. - 3.7 mm, p = 0.001), with lower CL (-4.3° vs. 7.0°, p = 0.001). Between-group changes from baseline to 2 years did not exceed MCID thresholds. Findings were unchanged in a Risser matched sensitivity analysis, with balanced baseline demographics and sagittal parameters and no between group changes exceeding prespecified MCID thresholds.

conclusion2RVBT and PSF produce comparable sagittal alignment changes at 2 years, with no between-group differences in change from baseline exceeding MCID thresholds. 2RVBT preserves motion without compromising sagittal balance in skeletally immature AIS patients.

Indexed as

Adolescent Idiopathic ScoliosisSagittal AlignmentSkeletally ImmatureSpinal FusionVertebral Body Tethering

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.