Does Posterior Scoliosis Correction Improve Respiratory Function in Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis? A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Study Design: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Objectives: Pulmonary dysfunction is often advocated among the indications for surgical correction of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS). Previous studies have discussed the effect of scoliosis correction on respiratory function without reaching a definitive conclusion: Some showed that the respiratory function can improve after scoliosis surgery without defining the precise role of anterior, posterior, and combined approaches on this improvement; furthermore, the majority of these studies did not take normal growth into account. As a result, the role of surgery remains to be clarified. The object of the present study was to synthesize the current knowledge regarding changes in respiratory function after posterior corrective surgery for AIS. Methods: A comprehensive systematic search was performed to identify all relevant studies in the following electronic databases: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL (EBSCO). We focused on the studies (1) that discussed posterior fusion surgery for AIS without thoracoplasty, (2) that discussed comparisons of pre- and postoperative percent-predicted values of forced vital capacity (%FVC) or forced expiratory volume (%FEV), and (3) with minimum 2-year follow-up. Forest plots were depicted and Z value was calculated as a test for overall effect. Results: Ten studies (6 prospective and 4 retrospective studies) met our inclusion criteria. The overall effect showed that there was no significant difference in %FVC or %FEV between pre- and postoperative measurements (very low evidence). Conclusions: Posterior correction surgery for mild to moderate AIS patients showed no significant improvement of postoperative respiratory function measured by relative, percent-predicted values at minimum 2-year follow-up.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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".