ArticleSpine deformity2026
Physeal effects of posterior VBT are not uniform throughout a multi-tether construct in the kyphotic swine model.
Article 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo assess if vertebral location within posterior VBT construct affected the overall vertebral growth rate, % growth modulation, and to determine if the proximal and distal physes within each tethered disk space responded similarly to tethering.
methodsSix hyper-kyphotic swine underwent multi-level posterior compressive tethering. Pulsed fluorochrome labeling was performed. Growth rates, % growth modulation, physeal zonal thicknesses, vertebral epiphyseal ossification, location of central nucleus pulposis, and vertebral shape by location within tether construct were measured.
resultsMean growth rates were similar throughout the vertebral levels studied and no significant difference was found between tethered or adjacent levels. However, the mean thickness of tethered physes was thinner than the adjacent uninstrumented physes (621 ± 36 μm vs 728 ± 52 μm, p = 0.001, adj p = 0.004) and this difference appeared to be primarily due to differences in the proliferative zone. The most proximal instrumented vertebral level, that corresponded anatomically to the 2nd and 3rd most distal thoracic level), had the greatest % growth modulation (55 ± 17%) compared to other instrumented levels (p = 0.0001, adj p value 0.004). No significant differences in growth rate, physeal thickness, or % growth modulation were found between the distal and proximal vertebral physes within each tethered disk. Adjacent level junctional kyphosis was observed through the significant reversal (negative) growth modulation at levels outside the construct (p < 0.0001, adj p value 0.004).
conclusionMean vertebral growth was not significantly inhibited by a posterior tether. Despite uniform tensioning throughout each construct, the most proximal tethered level experienced the most growth modulation indicating that growth may not be modulated the same at each level within a construct. Additionally, asymmetric vertebral growth may contribute to junctional kyphosis in the growing spine.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.