MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4312328400 · doi:10.2106/jbjs.22.00127

Anterior Vertebral Body Tethering Compared with Posterior Spinal Fusion for Major Thoracic Curves

2022· article· en· W4312328400 on OpenAlexaff
Peter O. Newton, Stefan Parent, Firoz Miyanji, Ahmet Alanay, Baron S. Lonner, Kevin M. Neal, Daniel G. Hoernschemeyer, Burt Yaszay, Laurel C. Blakemore, Suken A. Shah, Tracey P. Bastrom

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Bone and Joint Surgery · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicScoliosis diagnosis and treatment
Canadian institutionsBC Children's HospitalUniversité de MontréalCentre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-Justine
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineIdiopathic scoliosisScoliosisSurgeryRadiographySpinal fusionDeformityPropensity score matchingNuclear medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Anterior vertebral body tethering (AVBT) is an alternative to posterior spinal fusion (PSF) for the surgical treatment of scoliosis. The present study utilized a large, multicenter database and propensity matching to compare outcomes of AVBT to PSF in patients with idiopathic scoliosis. METHODS: Patients with thoracic idiopathic scoliosis who underwent AVBT with a minimum 2-year follow-up retrospectively underwent 2 methods of propensity-guided matching to PSF patients from an idiopathic scoliosis registry. Radiographic, clinical, and Scoliosis Research Society 22-Item Questionnaire (SRS-22) data were compared preoperatively and at the ≥2-year follow-up. RESULTS: A total of 237 AVBT patients were matched with 237 PSF patients. In the AVBT group, the mean age was 12.1 ± 1.6 years, the mean follow-up was 2.2 ± 0.5 years, 84% of patients were female, and 79% of patients had a Risser sign of 0 or 1, compared with 13.4 ± 1.4 years, 2.3 ± 0.5 years, 84% female, and 43% Risser 0 or 1 in the PSF group. The AVBT group was younger (p < 0.001), had a smaller mean thoracic curve preoperatively (48 ± 9°; range, 30° to 74°; compared with 53 ± 8°; range, 40° to 78° in the PSF group; p < 0.001), and had less initial correction (41% ± 16% correction to 28° ± 9° compared with 70% ± 11% correction to 16° ± 6° in the PSF group; p < 0.001). Thoracic deformity at the time of the latest follow-up was 27° ± 12° (range, 1° to 61°) for AVBT compared with 20° ± 7° (range, 3° to 42°) for PSF (p < 0.001). A total of 76% of AVBT patients had a thoracic curve of <35° at the latest follow-up compared with 97.4% of PSF patients (p < 0.001). A residual curve of >50° was present in 7 AVBT patients (3%), 3 of whom underwent subsequent PSF, and in 0 PSF patients (0%). Forty-six subsequent procedures were performed in 38 AVBT patients (16%), including 17 conversions to PSF and 16 revisions for excessive correction, compared with 4 revision procedures in 3 PSF patients (1.3%; p < 0.01). AVBT patients had lower median preoperative SRS-22 mental-health component scores (p < 0.01) and less improvement in the pain and self-image scores between preoperatively and the ≥2-year follow-up (p < 0.05). In the more strictly matched analysis (n = 108 each), 10% of patients in the AVBT group and 2% of patients in the PSF group required a subsequent surgical procedure. CONCLUSIONS: At a mean follow-up of 2.2 years, 76% of thoracic idiopathic scoliosis patients who underwent AVBT had a residual curve of <35° compared with 97.4% of patients who underwent PSF. A total of 16% of cases in the AVBT group required a subsequent surgical procedure compared with 1.3% in the PSF group. An additional 4 cases (1.3%) in the AVBT group had a residual curve of >50° that may require revision or conversion to PSF. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.042
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.259 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations45
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Bone and Joint SurgerySame topicScoliosis diagnosis and treatmentFrench-language works237,207