ArticleSpine deformity2026
Reoperation and fusion after documented tether breakage following vertebral body tethering: 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeRadiographic tether breakage after vertebral body tethering (VBT) is common, but its clinical consequence remains uncertain. After a break is detected, the relevant question is not breakage incidence but the conditional probability of further surgery. We quantified patient-level reoperation and fusion-containing surgery after documented breakage.
methodsPubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, and Web of Science Core Collection were searched from inception through June 30, 2026. Two reviewers independently screened English-language full-text reports, extracted linked post-breakage outcomes, and adjudicated cohort overlap. The primary outcome was any unplanned reoperation after documented breakage; the principal secondary outcome was fusion-containing surgery. One representative cohort per overlap cluster was selected. Proportions were synthesized using a binomial normal generalized linear mixed model.
resultsFive independent cohorts contributed 230 break-positive patients; 41 underwent unplanned reoperation (pooled proportion, 15.7%; 95% CI 6.0-24.4). Four cohorts reported unique fusion-patient counts; 13 of 146 patients underwent fusion-containing surgery (8.9%; 95% CI 3.2-14.2). Thus, 189 of 230 patients (82.2%) had no reported reoperation and 133 of 146 (91.1%) had no reported fusion-containing surgery during source-study follow-up. Certainty was very low for both outcomes.
conclusionDocumented breakage should not be assumed to represent treatment failure or an automatic indication for revision. Most break-positive patients had no reported further surgery during available follow-up in these observational cohorts, although selected patients required tether revision, hybrid salvage, or fusion. Management should be based on interval progression, symptoms, residual deformity, alignment, skeletal maturity, and patient priorities rather than radiographic breakage alone.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42766203What 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.