Mid- to Long-Term Outcomes in Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis After Instrumented Posterior Spinal Fusion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: Meta-analysis on mid- to long-term outcomes in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis after instrumented posterior spinal fusion. OBJECTIVE: To compare mid- to long-term outcomes and complications of the most commonly used instrumentation systems in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: A meta-analysis of mid- to long-term results of different methods of instrumentation, including the most currently used all-pedicle screw construct, is lacking. METHODS: A structured literature review was conducted for studies concerning management of patients with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis with instrumented posterior fusion. Pooled means, standard deviations, and sample sizes were either identified or calculated on the basis of the results of each study. RESULTS: Meta-analyses were performed on outcomes from 27 studies. Overall, 1613 patients who had been treated with Harrington rods, 361 patients who had undergone Cotrel-Dubousset instrumentation, and 298 patients who managed with all-pedicle screw constructs were reviewed. The mean follow-up was 14.9 years. Cotrel-Dubousset and pedicle screw instrumentations achieved a significantly greater degree of correction of the thoracic curve than Harrington rods (40.3° vs. 14.7°; P < 0.001 and 21.9° vs. 14.7°; P = 0.005, respectively). Cotrel-Dubousset technique achieved a significantly higher degree of correction than all-pedicle screw construct in both the thoracic (40.3° vs. 21.9°, respectively; P < 0.001) and lumbar curves (37.2° vs. 16°, respectively; P < 0.001). Similarly, Cotrel-Dubousset construct achieved a greater correction of both thoracic kyphosis (33.5° vs. 23°, respectively; P < 0.001) and lumbar lordosis (46° vs. 50.7°, respectively; P = 0.002) than pedicle screws. All-pedicle screw fixation was associated with the lower risk of pseudarthrosis, infection, neurological deficit, and reoperation. CONCLUSION: This study confirms the negative effect of Harrington rods on sagittal alignment. We further found that the degree of correction in the coronal and sagittal planes was higher after Cotrel-Dubousset instrumentation than all-pedicle screw fixation. All-pedicle screw constructs offered the lower risk of mid- to long-term complications and revision surgery.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".