Open Access
Review

Table 1

Characteristics and demographics of the studies.

No Author, year Study design Level of study Operative technique Sample size (M/F) Age (yr) Follow-up time (months)
Non-osteotomy
1 Shen, 2006 [10] Retrospective III Two-stage combined APSF 4/8 (12) 13.7 ± 3.6 39.6
One-stage combined spinal fusion 5/7 (12) 15.2 ± 3.6 39.6
2 Hamzaoglu, 2008 [11] Retrospective III Halo-femoral traction and posterior only pedicle screw instrumentation 4/11 (15) 17.8 56
3 Li, 2009 [9] Retrospective III Single-staged APSF 6/25 (31) 15.9 42
4 Zheng, 2013 [12] Retrospective III PSF with a pedicle screw-only construct 11/10 (21) 15 >24
5 Ren, 2014 [13] Retrospective III Anterior release with temporary posterior internal distraction, followed by posterior fusion and instrumentation 8/9 (17) 17.7 ± 2.9 28.1 ± 5.3
6 Mihara, 2020 [14] Retrospective III Single-staged PSF 6/65 (71) 16.1 ± 5.8 N/A
7 Mirzashahi, 2020 [15] Retrospective III Single-staged posterior-only approach 8/15 (23) 16.2 37.0 ± 7.6
8 Chan, 2020 [16] Retrospective III Single-staged PSF 3/38 (41) 16.9 + 5.6 N/A
9 Grabala, 2020 [17] Retrospective III Less-invasive TID followed staged pedicle screw instrumentation 3/19 (22) 14.8 ± 2.0 31
10 Gatam, 2020 [18] Case series IV PSF 1/7 (8) 16.4 ± 1.8 12
11 Chan, 2021 [19] Retrospective III PSF using a dual attending surgeon strategy 12/93 (105) 15.7 ± 5.0 N/A
12 Mihara Y, 2021 [20] Retrospective III Single stage PSF with pedicle screw construct without any osteotomies 16/112 (128) 15.5 ± 4.5 N/A
13 Badin D, 2023 [8] Retrospective III TID 1/17 (18) 13 ± 1.6 61.32
14 Stone LE, 2024 [21] Prospective, multicenter II Combined anterior release with posterior instrumentation 3/13 (16) 14.4 ± 2.0 24
15 Grabala P, 2024 [22] Retrospective III Halo gravity traction with PSF 2/18 (20) 16.5 ± 3.5 42
Minimally invasive TID technique followed by staged surgery and PSF 10/32 (42) 16.4 ± 4.8 42
16 Chandirasegaran, 2025 [23] Retrospective III Single-staged PSF 0/37 (37) 15.7 ± 3.4 N/A
Ponte Ostetotomy/Smith Peterson Osteotomy
17 Zhang, 2019 [24] Retrospective III Multiple-level asymmetrical Ponte osteotomies 5/21 (26) 26.7 ± 8.4 30.24 ± 10.6
18 Di, 2020 [25] Retrospective III A two-staged posterior correction, using a temporary MCGR 5/12 (17) 14.5 ± 1.4 34.8
19 Koller H, 2021 [26] Retrospective III Periapical release using advanced ponte osteotomies, segmental insertion of pedicle screws and a single MCGR N/A (7) 15 19
20 Stone LE, 2024 [21] Prospective, multicenter II Posterior with posterior column osteotomies 9/29 (38) 14.4 ± 2.0 24
Vertebral Column Resection (VCR)
21 Zhou, 2011 [27] Retrospective III Anterior and posterior VCR 8/8 (16) 16 32.4
22 Modi, 2011 [28] Prospective II Posterior multilevel vertebral osteotomy 4/3 (7) 23.9 40
23 Ren, 2014 [13] Retrospective III Anterior vertebral column resection followed by posterior VCR and instrumentation 9/17 (26) 15.1 ± 3.7 28.4 ± 4.6
24 Li, 2019 [29] Retrospective III Anterior and posterior VCR N/A (6) 15.5 ± 1.9 45.5
25 Zhang, 2019 [24] Retrospective III Single-level posterior VCR 2/10 (12) 27.9 ± 7.5 30.24 ± 10.6
26 Song Z, 2022 [30] Retrospective III Posterior VCR N/A (87) 18.7 42
27 Stone LE, 2024 [21] Prospective, multicenter II Posterior VCR 3/4 (7) 14.4 ± 2.0 24

M: Male; F: Female; N/A: not available; PSF = Posterior spinal fusion; TID = Temporary internal distraction; APSF = Anteroposterior spinal fusion; MCGR = Magnetically Controlled Growing Rod; VCR = Vertebral Column Resection.

Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.

Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.

Initial download of the metrics may take a while.