Posterior Instrumentation and Fusion in Multiple-segment Adolescent Congenital Scoliosis: When Are Posterior Column and Concave Rib Osteotomies Needed?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: No clear guidelines exist for appropriate surgical treatment of congenital scoliosis. The spectrum varies from isolated posterior instrumentation and fusion (PIF-only) to vertebral column resections. Multiple posterior column osteotomies (PCOs) with and without concave rib osteotomies have previously been suggested as an alternative to invasive 3-column osteotomies. The aim of the study is to analyze outcomes of spinal surgery in congenital scoliosis patients for a new treatment algorithm based on a traction radiograph under general anesthesia (TruGA). METHODS: Surgical intervention was determined according to flexibility with TruGA: patients with >40% correction underwent PIF-only; patients with <40% of correction underwent PCO. Patients, who had <30% of correction in TruGA and/or more than 5 vertebral levels with failure of segmentation, underwent additional concave rib osteotomies. The radiologic and clinical results were compared. RESULTS: Forty-three patients met inclusion criteria (14M). The mean age was 13.8 (10 to 17) years, average follow-up 67 (24 to 107) months. Fourteen patients were in the PIF-only group, 29 in the PCO group. PCO patients were significantly older (14.5 vs. 12.3, P=0.001). Mean operative time and blood loss of PCO group were significantly greater than those of PIF-only group. Nine patients required concave rib osteotomies. While the curve magnitude of patients in the PIF-only and PCO groups did not differ significantly (54.6 vs. 63 degrees, P=0.067), curve rigidity was significantly higher in the patients of PCO group (51.2% vs. 32%, P=0.001). Despite this, postoperative correction rates for 2 groups were similar (51.1% vs. 47.8%, P=0.545). CONCLUSIONS: The number of anomalous segments and the curve flexibility on TruGA play important roles in the decision-making process in congenital scoliosis and <40% flexibility of the major curve could be an important indicator of the need for PCO. Curves with more than 5 anomalous vertebral segments might be more likely to need additional concave rib osteotomies for adequate correction. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
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".