ReviewSpine deformity2026
Implant migration in growth-friendly constructs for early-onset scoliosis: a systematic review of reported patterns, associated factors, and clinical consequences.
Review 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeImplant migration is an incompletely characterised complication of growth-friendly treatment for early-onset scoliosis (EOS), with inconsistent terminology across the literature. This systematic review aimed to characterise reported patterns, study-specific frequency, associated factors, detection, and clinical consequences of implant migration and migration-related fixation failure in growth-friendly EOS constructs.
methodsPubMed, Embase, and CINAHL were searched from database inception to 27th November 2025 in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. Studies reporting implant migration or migration-related fixation failure in children with EOS treated with growth-friendly constructs were included. Findings were synthesised descriptively because migration definitions, constructs, outcome ascertainment, and reporting were heterogeneous. Risk of bias was assessed using Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal tools, and certainty of evidence was evaluated using GRADE.
resultsNineteen studies were included, predominantly retrospective cohorts and case series. Migration terminology was inconsistent and frequently overlapped with pull-out, dislodgement, loosening, and loss of fixation. For descriptive synthesis, reported events were organised into three recurring anatomical patterns: apical/ventral rod migration, proximal anchor migration/fixation failure, and distal or pelvic anchor migration/fixation failure. Ventral rod migration was represented by two publications, including one cohort in which CT-defined migration occurred in 3/90 patients (3.3%) and one case report. Proximal anchor-related events were represented across a greater number of studies. Candidate associated factors included deformity severity, repeated lengthening, patient morphology or bone quality, and construct characteristics; however, the available evidence did not permit identification of independent predictors.
conclusionImplant migration and migration-related fixation failure in growth-friendly EOS constructs are inconsistently defined and reported. The available evidence supports a proposed descriptive anatomical framework but does not permit reliable pooled incidence estimation or prediction of individual patient risk. Standardised definitions and prospective multicentre reporting are required to determine frequency, predictors, and clinically meaningful surveillance strategies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42862547What 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.