ReviewJournal of spine surgery (Hong Kong)2026
Advancements in sagittal alignment parameters and management of adult spine deformities.
Review in Journal of spine surgery (Hong Kong), 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Adult spinal deformity (ASD) is increasingly recognized as a condition in which sagittal alignment plays a role in pain, disability, and mechanical failure. Historically, sagittal correction strategies relied on global radiographic parameters such as sagittal vertical axis (SVA) and pelvic incidence-lumbar lordosis (PI-LL) mismatch. While these measures demonstrated important associations with health-related quality of life, they incompletely account for compensated deformities, segmental mechanics, and directionality of correction. Over the past decade, alignment planning has evolved toward more individualized frameworks that incorporate pelvic morphology, age, segmental lordosis distribution, and direction-sensitive metrics. Outcome-derived strategies, such as age-adjusted alignment targets, have contributed valuable insights but remain controversial and are not universally accepted as definitive sagittal goals. Radiographic parameters, including the L1 pelvic angle (L1PA) and T4-L1-hip axis, provide reproducible, intraoperatively modifiable feedback and improved prediction of mechanical failure risk when applied with appropriate clinical context. This review synthesizes the evolution of sagittal alignment strategies in ASD, highlighting the strengths and limitations of historical global metrics, age-adjusted frameworks, and emerging vector-based and segmental alignment concepts. Emphasis is placed on integrated, patient-specific approaches that balance global, segmental, and directional parameters to optimize outcomes.
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.