Asian Spine J Search

CLOSE


Asian Spine J > Online first
Garg, Hammad, Sahu, Hammad, and Ahmad: Apical vertebral modulation with active apex correction technique for congenital early-onset scoliosis: a retrospective study

Abstract

Study Design

Retrospective, single-center study.

Purpose

This study aimed to evaluate whether active apex correction (APC) enables effective modulation of the apical vertebrae in congenital early-onset scoliosis (EOS).

Overview of Literature

APC is a posterior tethering technique that incorporates guided growth principles for the treatment of EOS. The procedure involves the strategic placement of tethering pedicle screws on the convex side of the apical region to achieve controlled modulation of vertebral growth.

Methods

This retrospective study included 10 patients with congenital EOS who underwent APC as the primary surgical procedure. Preoperative and final follow-up assessments were performed using EOS imaging to measure concave and convex vertebral heights at the apical region and evaluate growth modulation. Patients were excluded if follow-up was <2 years, if apex modulation data were incomplete, or if APC was not the index procedure.

Results

The mean age at surgery was 8.2±2.39 years, and the mean postoperative follow-up was 2.3±0.48 years. The concave-to-convex vertebral height ratio at the apical region showed significant changes. At proximal apical vertebrae (A1), the ratio increased from 0.75 preoperatively to 0.84 at final follow-up (p<0.05). At the middle vertebrae (A2), the ratio improved from 0.71 to 0.78 (p<0.05). At the distal vertebrae (A3), the ratio increased from 0.77 to 0.81, although this change was not statistically significant (p>0.05). In contrast, untethered control vertebrae demonstrated a stable mean concave-to-convex height ratio.

Conclusions

APC appears effective in EOS, enabling targeted modulation of the three apical vertebrae through guided growth principles. This technique enables controlled correction of the spinal apex and represents a promising growth-preserving alternative for apical deformity management.

Introduction

Early-onset scoliosis (EOS) is a spinal deformity that develops before age 10 [1,2]. Regardless of etiology, progressive spinal curvature leads to chest wall rotation, reduced thoracic volume, and impaired pulmonary development. The primary goals of congenital EOS treatment are to halt curve progression, correct the deformity, preserve spinal growth, and maximize thoracic volume to support cardiopulmonary development and prevent long-term respiratory and cardiac complications [13]. Initial management typically involves bracing and/or corrective casting to delay or avoid surgery. However, in rapidly progressive curves, these methods are often insufficient, necessitating the use of surgical, growth-friendly corrective techniques [1,46].
Apical curvature deformity is a complex three-dimensional (3D) phenomenon characterized by spinal rotation, coronal deviation, and passive anterior column lengthening [7,8]. The optimal magnitude and approach for achieving the required convex–concave and anterior–posterior length adjustments to restore physiological spinal morphology remain unclear. In principle, 3D correction should involve concave lengthening, convex shortening, axial plane derotation, and medial translation of the apex toward the midline in the coronal plane [911].
Several surgical techniques have been developed to preserve spinal growth and thoracic development while minimizing complications. A central principle in EOS management is achieving control of the apex of the spinal curve, which is essential for deformity correction without compromising growth potential.
The SHILLA technique, an early posterior approach, aimed to control the apex by fusing the apical region while allowing the rods to glide proximally and distally. Although SHILLA preserved some spinal growth, it was associated with a high incidence of crankshafting. This occurred due to continued anterior apical growth despite posterior fusion, resulting in progressive rotational deformity.
To overcome these limitations, the active apex correction (APC) technique was developed as a modification that incorporates principles of guided growth and posterior tethering. Unlike SHILLA, APC uses a non-fusion strategy for apical correction, focusing on growth guidance through targeted modulation. APC entails the application of controlled compression or distraction, medial translation, and axial derotation to the convex side of the apical vertebrae. This method addresses the primary drivers of curve progression, including vertebral wedging, lateral shift, and axial rotation, and helps reverse unfavorable growth patterns without fusion. By tethering only the convex side, APC allows dynamic modulation of the apical vertebrae, increases the concave-to-convex vertebral height ratio, and gradually reduces vertebral wedging [12,13].
Anterior vertebral body tethering (VBT) is another well-established technique for apical control. VBT is a non-fusion procedure that corrects the spinal curve by tethering the vertebrae with screws connected by a flexible cord. This construct maintains curve correction and facilitates modulation of the tethered vertebrae. However, VBT is primarily used in growing patients with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis and has not been widely adopted for EOS or for nonidiopathic deformities [14].
The objective of this study was to assess whether APC enables modulation of the three apical vertebrae within the tethered segment during correction of congenital EOS.

Materials and Methods

This retrospective, single-center study evaluated 10 skeletally immature patients diagnosed with scoliosis or kyphoscoliosis. All patients demonstrated radiographic evidence of vertebral wedging at the apex of the curve. Each patient underwent APC as the index surgical procedure intended for deformity correction. Inclusion criteria were as follows: (1) onset before 10 years of age, consistent with EOS; (2) a major Cobb angle greater than 40°; (3) skeletal immaturity at the time of surgery; and (4) congenital scoliosis as the underlying diagnosis. Patients were excluded if the scoliosis was noncongenital, if APC was performed as revision surgery, if follow-up was less than 24 months, or if apex modulation data were unavailable. Demographic and perioperative characteristics of the study cohort are summarized in Table 1.

Surgical technique

APC is a modified adaptation of the traditional SHILLA technique (Fig. 1). All procedures were performed with the patient in the prone position under intraoperative neuromonitoring and C-arm fluoroscopic guidance. Proximal and distal anchor fixation was achieved using pedicle screws or hooks, typically placed across two consecutive vertebrae.
At the apex, an extra periosteal dissection was performed using the Wiltse approach to insert pedicle screws on the convex side. Screws were positioned one level above (A1) and one level below (A3) the most wedged apical vertebra (A2), with care taken to avoid fusion (Fig. 2A). A 5.5 mm titanium or 4.75 mm cobalt-chrome tethering rod was then used to connect the convex screws to either the proximal or distal anchor rods, directly or via domino connectors (Fig. 2B).
Three correctional maneuvers were applied simultaneously at the tethered levels: (1) compression, (2) medial translation, and (3) axial derotation (Fig. 2C). The domino connectors were locked at the tethered rod level, while the contralateral rod was left unlocked with a minimum of 4 cm of gliding capacity to allow approximately 4 years of longitudinal growth (Fig. 2D). On the concave side, the rod connected to proximal and distal anchors was coupled to an unlocked domino with one hole reserved for guided self-gliding. Distraction was applied, and a proximal mechanical barrier was used to prevent reverse gliding. The wound was closed after irrigation, and no surgical drains were used. Postoperatively, none of the patients required casting or bracing.

Radiographic evaluation

Radiographic evaluation was performed using EOS imaging technology (EOS Imaging, Paris, France), which provides low-dose, biplanar, full-body images in the standing position. EOS enables 3D spinal reconstruction with radiation exposure that is approximately 5 to 7 times lower than conventional computed tomography (CT) and allows accurate assessment of vertebral morphology, alignment, Cobb angle, kyphosis, and axial rotation [15,16].
Data collected included demographic information, curve parameters (Cobb angle, apical vertebral translation [AVT]) (Fig. 3), and spinal lengths (T1–T12 and T1–L5). Measurements were obtained preoperatively, immediately after surgery, and at final follow-up.
Using EOS 3D reconstructions, concave and convex vertebral heights were measured for the three apical vertebrae (A1, A2, A3) preoperatively and at final follow-up. The concave-to-convex height ratio was calculated to assess changes in vertebral morphology consistent with apical modulation. These values were compared with an untethered control vertebra to account for physiological growth. Vertebral wedging, considered a key initiating factor in scoliotic deformity, was also quantified and monitored over time.

Ethical considerations and statistical analysis

The study was approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) of All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi (IRB no., AIIMSA2927/06.12.2024). Written informed consents were obtained from the patients/parents of minors. Statistical analysis was conducted using Microsoft Excel (Microsoft Corp., Redmond, WA, USA) and IBM SPSS Statistics ver. 29.0.2.0 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA). Continuous variables are presented as mean±standard deviation, and categorical variables as frequency (percentage). Paired t-tests were used to compare preoperative and postoperative measurements. A p-value <0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results

A total of 10 patients with congenital EOS underwent APC as their index surgical intervention. The mean age at surgery was 8.2±2.39 years. Demographic data and curve characteristics are summarized in Tables 13. Among this cohort, seven patients had a wedge vertebra, and three had a fully segmented hemivertebra. None of the patients demonstrated an intervertebral bar.

Illustrative case example

Fig. 4 presents a representative case of a 5-year-old male with congenital scoliosis treated with APC. Postoperative imaging demonstrated clear medial translation of the apical vertebra.

Curve characteristics

At final follow-up, statistically significant improvements were observed across multiple parameters compared with preoperative values. Cobbs angle, AVT, T1–T12 spinal length, and T1–L5 spinal length all showed significant improvements (p<0.01) (Table 1).
Immediate postoperative comparisons also demonstrated significant improvements in Cobb angle, AVT, and T1–T12 length (p<0.01), whereas the change in T1–L5 length was not statistically significant (p>0.05) (Table 2).
When final follow-up measurements were compared with immediate postoperative values, further significant gains were noted in Cobb angle, AVT, T1–T12 length, and T1–L5 length (p<0.05) (Table 2, Fig. 3).
At the 2-year follow-up, both concave and convex vertebral heights increased significantly at all evaluated vertebral levels (A1, A2, A3, and the untethered control) (p<0.01) (Table 3).
Apical modulation, assessed using concave-to-convex height ratios, increased significantly from preoperative to final follow-up at A1 (p<0.03) and A2 (p<0.05). A3 also demonstrated an increase in the ratio, although this change was not statistically significant (p>0.05). In contrast, the untethered vertebra showed no change in the mean ratio (0.97 to 0.97, p>0.05) (Table 3).
These findings indicate that the tethered vertebrae, particularly A1 and A2, underwent differential growth modulation consistent with Hueter-Volkmann principles. This supports the hypothesis that APC promotes modulation of vertebral wedging across multiple apical vertebrae, rather than solely on the most wedged vertebra (Fig. 5).

Complications

During the follow-up period, two of the 10 patients (20%) developed implant-related complications. One patient experienced a rod fracture, and another had a screw pull-out. In addition, one case of intraoperative neuromonitoring signal loss necessitated a staged surgical approach. No postoperative neurological deficits were observed in any patient.

Discussion

The spine plays a fundamental role in maintaining posture, enabling movement, and supporting cardiopulmonary development. In EOS, progressive deformity alters spinal morphology and function, warranting surgical intervention when conservative methods fail [17]. Scoliotic deformity is a complex 3D anomaly characterized by coronal deviation, vertebral rotation, and apical lordosis, influenced by both vertebral and intervertebral disc mechanics [7,8,10,18,19].
Traditional methods for apical control include fusion-based techniques such as SHILLA and convex growth arrest (CGA). CGA involves epiphyseal plate fusion on the convex side with the aim of permitting continued growth on the concave side [2022]. However, results have been inconsistent. Ginsburg et al. [22] reported that CGA halted curve progression in only seven of 10 cases and did not promote spinal growth, and Tauchi et al. [20] noted that failed hemiepiphysiodesis can compromise subsequent corrective efforts. Although posterior instrumented fusion provides structural correction, it restricts longitudinal growth and limits further modulation potential [23].
Hybrid approaches that combine convex fusion with concave distraction have attempted to balance deformity correction with continued spinal growth [24,25]. Alanay et al. [24] reported improvements in coronal alignment and concave-side growth, although these benefits were accompanied by frequent surgeries and an 80% complication rate. Similarly, Demirkiran et al. [25] demonstrated effective correction and growth preservation, but complications occurred in 72% of patients, and repeated distraction procedures were required.
More recently, techniques have shifted toward nonfusion strategies that aim to correct the deformity while preserving spinal growth and function [4]. APC, introduced 16 years ago, was developed to achieve dynamic apical modulation through posterior convex-side tethering and controlled compression. This facilitates medial translation and derotation of the apex [26]. The underlying concept is that maintaining anterior and posterior growth helps prevent the crankshaft phenomenon. Studies by Newton et al. [14] and Louer et al. [27] have demonstrated asymmetric growth modulation and vertebral remodeling through tethering, and EOS imaging has become a valuable tool for monitoring these morphological changes.
Our study is the first to evaluate 2-year outcomes of APC in congenital EOS with a specific focus on vertebral modulation assessed through EOS imaging. We observed significant improvements in Cobb angle, AVT, and spinal lengths (T1–T12 and T1–L5). Concave and convex vertebral heights increased significantly at all assessed levels, consistent with previous reports indicating that APC supports growth-friendly deformity correction [26,28].
Notably, the concave-to-convex height ratio at A1 and A2 increased significantly, indicating greater concave-side growth and demonstrating true modulation of the tethered vertebrae. In contrast, the untethered vertebrae showed no change in this ratio, highlighting the localized effect of APC-mediated modulation. Although A3 did not reach statistical significance, the observed trend suggests a clinically meaningful response that may have been constrained by the small sample size and limited follow-up duration.
Our findings also support recent observations that the apical vertebra is not always the most rotated and that adjacent vertebrae may contribute more significantly to trunk rotation [18,29]. This highlights the importance of including periapical vertebrae in the corrective strategy, which is reflected in the modulation detected at A1 and A3. In our cohort of patients with congenital scoliosis, postoperative correction was achieved in all cases using the APC technique. The posterior-only tether provides asymmetric growth by allowing distraction on the concave side, which contributes to deformity correction and helps prevent the crankshaft phenomenon.
The complication rate in our series was low (20%) with one rod breakage and one screw pull-out, notably lower than other growth-friendly techniques. None of the patients developed the crankshaft phenomenon, a major drawback of SHILLA [26]. In comparison, SHILLA and CGA-based techniques have reported complication rates of up to 80%, including implant failure and the need for revision surgery [22,24,25].
This study is limited by its small sample size and relatively short follow-up period. The degree of the applied compression force was not quantified, leaving its specific contribution to vertebral modulation uncertain. The lack of statistical significance at A3 also warrants further investigation in a larger cohort. Long-term, multicenter studies are needed to confirm the durability and growth-modulating potential of APC. Potential iatrogenic effects on the intervertebral disc and adjacent spinal segments require extended follow-up and are acknowledged as a limitation of this study.

Conclusions

Congenital EOS remains a challenging condition, yet advances in growth-preserving surgical techniques offer new therapeutic opportunities. APC is a novel method that achieves deformity correction through apical modulation without the need for fusion. This study is the first to demonstrate vertebral modulation following posterior tethering with APC, supported by short-term improvements in spinal alignment, growth parameters, and a low complication rate. These findings position APC as a promising alternative to fusion-based approaches. Long-term studies are needed to assess the durability and wider applicability of these outcomes.

Key Points

  • Active apex correction (APC) is technique used to control the spinal apex in congenital scoliosis by tethering technique.

  • APC demonstrated significant improvements in Cobb angle, apical vertebral translation, and spinal length over 2 years followup.

  • APC represents growth preserving alternatives to fusion based surgery for deformity correction.

Notes

Conflict of Interest

No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.

Authors Contributions

AA contributed to conception and design, did the statistical analysis. AH, MH, and AA critically wrote, read, and revised the manuscript. BG and AS gathered the data and X-ray findings. All authors gave final approval and agreed to be accountable for all aspects of work ensuring integrity and accuracy.

Fig. 1
Active apex correction as a modified version of the traditional SHILLA technique.
asj-2025-0365f1.jpg
Fig. 2
Intraoperative image showing (A) extra periosteal dissection through Wiltse technique inserting screws on the convex side above and below the most wedged vertebrae; (B) tethered rod connecting the tethered screw with the proximal or distal anchors rods through dominos; (C) three procedures at the level of tethered screws are done at the same time: compression, medial translation, and de-rotation; and (D) dominos locked at the tethered rod level at least 4 cm to have a potential of 4 years self-gliding.
asj-2025-0365f2.jpg
Fig. 3
Apical vertebral translation (AVT) measurement.
asj-2025-0365f3.jpg
Fig. 4
Preoperative (A) and postoperative (B) X-ray showing correction of deformity with active apex correction technique.
asj-2025-0365f4.jpg
Fig. 5
Box plots comparing (A–D) concave height, convex height, and the concave-to-convex ratio at the proximal vertebra (A1), wedged vertebra (A2), distal vertebra (A3), and untethered vertebra between preoperative and postoperative measurements, and (E–H) Cobb angle, spine length gain (T1–T12 and T1–L5), and apical vertebral translation among preoperative, immediate postoperative, and final follow-up measurements.
asj-2025-0365f5.jpg
Table 1
Cohort demographic and spinal parameters at surgery and at 2 years follow-up quantifying the extent of deformity and subsequent correction
Patient Diagnosis Age (mo) Gender FU (mo) Congenital anomaly Apex level Cobbs angle (°) AVT (cm) SL T1–T12 (cm) SL T1–L5 (cm)




Preop FU Preop FU Preop FU Preop FU
1 Congenital scoliosis 108 M 36 Hemi vertebrae T7 & T9 T8 56 42 6.2 4.9 15.6 16.5 27 29

2 Congenital scoliosis 48 F 36 T10 wedge T10 47 42 3.2 2.6 16 17.2 30 34

3 Congenital scoliosis 132 M 36 Hemi vertebrae L1 L1 48 36 5.6 4.3 17 18 33 30

4 Congenital scoliosis 72 F 24 T9 wedge T11 58 49 4.6 3.6 16 16.6 30 33

5 Congenital scoliosis 96 F 24 T9 wedge T9 48 43 4.9 4 14 16 29.6 33.2

6 Congenital scoliosis 120 M 24 T10 wedge T10 49 42 4.7 4 15 16 28.9 32

7 Congenital scoliosis 84 M 24 Hemi vertebrae L1 L1 52 40 3.6 2.9 16.3 17.2 33.4 36

8 Congenital scoliosis 72 M 24 T11 wedge T11 57 45 5.2 3.9 15.5 16.3 32 34.2

9 Congenital scoliosis 120 M 24 T11 wedge T11 47 39 4.2 3.6 16 17 32 34.5

10 Congenital scoliosis 132 M 24 T9 wedge T9 45 38 3.2 2.8 16.2 16.7 33.5 36.2

Mean±SD 98.4±28.73 27.6±5.80 50.7±4.72 41.6±3.69 4.5±1.00 3.7±0.72 15.8±0.81 16.8±0.62 30.9±2.17 33.2±2.35

p-value <0.001* <0.001* <0.001* <0.002*

FU, follow-up; AVT, apical vertebral translation; SL, spinal length; Preop, preoperative; M, male; F, female; SD, standard deviation.

* p<0.05 (statistically significant).

Table 2
Cohort spinal parameters at surgery, at immediate and at final follow-up quantifying and comparing the extent of deformity and subsequent correction
Variable Patient p-value Mean±SD
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Preoperative vs. immediate FU
 Cobbs angle (°) <0.01*
  Preoperative 56 47 48 58 48 49 52 57 47 45 50.7±4.72
  Immediate FU 49 46 45 52 46 45 46 49 45 40 46.3±3.20
 AVT (cm) <0.01*
  Preoperative 6.2 3.2 5.6 4.6 4.9 4.7 3.6 5.2 4.2 3.2 4.5±1.00
  Immediate FU 5.7 3 5.2 4.2 4.6 4.5 3 4.2 4 3 4.1±0.93
 SL T1–T12 (cm) <0.01*
  Preoperative 15.6 16 17 16 14 15 16.3 15.5 16 16.2 15.8±0.81
  Immediate FU 16 16.9 17.5 16.2 15 15.2 17 16 16.5 16.3 16.3±0.77
 SL T1–L5 (cm) >0.05
  Preoperative 27 30 33 30 29.6 28.9 33.4 32 32 33.5 30.9±2.17
  Immediate FU 29 32 29 31 30 30 35 34 34 35 31.8±2.46
Immediate vs. final FU
 Cobbs angle (°) <0.01*
  Immediate FU 49 46 45 52 46 45 46 49 45 40 46.3±3.20
  Final FU 42 42 36 49 43 42 40 45 39 38 41.6±3.69
 AVT (cm) <0.01*
  Immediate FU 5.7 3 5.2 4.2 4.6 4.5 3 4.2 4 3 4.1±0.93
  Final FU 4.9 2.6 4.3 3.6 4 4 2.9 3.9 3.6 2.8 3.7±0.72
 SL T1–T12 (cm) <0.01*
  Immediate FU 16 16.9 17.5 16.2 15 15.2 17 16 16.5 16.3 16.3±0.77
  Final FU 16.5 17.2 18 16.6 16 16 17.2 16.3 17 16.7 16.8±0.62
 SL T1–L5 (cm) <0.01*
  Immediate FU 28.5 32 29 31 30 30 35 33.6 34 35 31.8±2.46
  Final FU 29 34 30 33 33 32 36 34 35 36 33.2±2.35

SD, standard deviation; FU, follow-up; AVT, apical vertebral translation; SL, spinal length.

* p<0.05 (statistically significant).

Table 3
Curve parameters at surgery and at 2-year follow-up quantifying the concave and convex heights of the deformity and subsequent correction
Variable Patient p-value Mean±SD
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
A1
 Concave (cm) <0.01*
  Preoperative 0.7 1.2 1 1.1 0.7 1.1 1.2 1.1 0.8 0.9 0.98±0.19
  FU 1 1.4 1.2 1.3 1.2 1.6 1.8 1.3 1.7 1 1.35±0.28
 Convex (cm) <0.01*
  Preoperative 1.1 1.4 1.5 1.4 1.1 1.6 1.4 1.2 1.6 1.2 1.35±0.19
  FU 1.3 1.6 1.6 1.5 1.3 1.8 2 1.5 1.9 1.6 1.61±0.23
 Concave/convex ratio <0.03*
  Preoperative 0.64 0.86 0.67 0.79 0.64 0.69 0.86 0. 0.8792 0.5 0.75 0.73±0.13
  FU 0.77 0.88 0.75 0.87 0.92 0.89 0.9 0.89 0.63 0.84±0.09
A2
 Concave (cm) <0.01*
  Preoperative 0.9 0.9 0.9 1 1 1 0.6 0.9 0.8 1.1 0.91±0.14
  FU 1 1.1 1 1.2 1.2 1.2 0.9 1 1.4 1.1 1.11±0.14
 Convex (cm) <0.01*
  Preoperative 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.2 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.1 1.6 1.4 1.29±0.14
  FU 1.3 1.3 1.4 1.6 1.5 1.4 1.4 1.1 1.7 1.5 1.42±0.17
 Concave/convex ratio <0.04*
  Preoperative 0.75 0.75 0.69 0.83 0.77 0.77 0.46 0.82 0.5 0.79 0.71±0.13
  FU 0.77 0.85 0.71 0.75 0.80 0.86 0.64 0.91 0.82 0.73 0.78±0.08
A3
 Concave (cm) <0.01*
  Preoperative 0.7 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.5 1.1 1.3 1 1.2 1.13±0.21
  FU 1.1 1.5 1.5 1.3 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.4 1.3 1.3 1.42±0.17
 Convex (cm) <0.01*
  Preoperative 1.2 1.6 1.7 1.4 1.4 1.8 1.4 1.4 1.3 1.5 1.47±0.18
  FU 1.4 1.9 1.8 1.6 1.7 2.2 2.1 1.7 1.6 1.6 1.76±0.25
 Concave/convex ratio >0.05
  Preoperative 0.58 0.69 0.65 0.79 0.86 0.83 0.79 0.93 0.77 0.8 0.77±0.10
  FU 0.79 0.79 0.83 0.81 0.94 0.73 0.76 0.82 0.81 0.81 0.81±0.05
Untethered vertebra
 Concave (cm) <0.01*
  Preoperative 1.5 2 2 0.7 1.5 1.8 0.7 1.8 1.6 1.1 1.47±0.49
  FU 1.8 2.2 2.4 0.7 1.7 1.9 1.1 2 1.8 1.2 1.68±0.53
 Convex (cm) <0.01*
  Preoperative 1.5 2 2 0.7 1.6 1.7 0.7 1.8 1.7 1.1 1.48±0.48
  FU 1.8 2.3 2.4 0.7 1.7 1.9 1.1 2 2.3 1.3 1.75±0.56
 Concave/convex ratio >0.40
  Preoperative 1 1 0.95 1 0.94 1.06 0.88 1 0.89 1 0.97±0.06
  FU 1.00 0.96 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.78 0.92 0.97±0.07

SD, standard deviation; FU, follow-up; A2, most wedged vertebra; A1, vertebra proximal to A2; A3, vertebra distal to A2.

* p<0.05 (statistically significant).

References

1. Schlosser TP, Kruyt MC, Tsirikos AI. Surgical management of early-onset scoliosis: indications and currently available techniques. Orthop Trauma 2021;35:336–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mporth.2021.09.004
crossref
2. Williams BA, Matsumoto H, McCalla DJ, et al. Development and initial validation of the Classification of Early-Onset Scoliosis (C-EOS). J Bone Joint Surg Am 2014;96:1359–67. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.M.00253
crossref pmid
3. Kim G, Sammak SE, Michalopoulos GD, et al. Comparison of surgical interventions for the treatment of early-onset scoliosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Neurosurg Pediatr 2022;31:342–57. https://doi.org/10.3171/2022.8.peds22156
crossref pmid
4. Ahmad AA. Early onset scoliosis and current treatment methods. J Clin Orthop Trauma 2020;11:184–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcot.2019.12.011
crossref pmid
5. Latalski M, Fatyga M, Sowa I, Wojciak M, Starobrat G, Danielewicz A. Complications in growth-friendly spinal surgeries for early-onset scoliosis: literature review. World J Orthop 2021;12:584–603. https://doi.org/10.5312/wjo.v12.i8.584
crossref pmid pmc
6. Skaggs DL, Guillaume T, El-Hawary R, Emans J, Mendelow M, Smith J. Early onset scoliosis consensus statement, SRS Growing Spine Committee, 2015. Spine Deform 2015;3:107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jspd.2015.01.002
crossref
7. Castelein RM, Pasha S, Cheng JC, Dubousset J. Idiopathic scoliosis as a rotatory decompensation of the spine. J Bone Miner Res 2020;35:1850–7. https://doi.org/10.1002/jbmr.4137
crossref pmid
8. de Reuver S, de Block N, Brink RC, et al. Convex-concave and anterior-posterior spinal length discrepancies in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis with major right thoracic curves versus matched controls. Spine Deform 2023;11:87–93. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43390-022-00566-w
crossref pmid
9. Pesenti S, Lafage R, Henry B, et al. Deformity correction in thoracic adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Bone Joint J 2020;102-B:376–82. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.102B3.BJJ-2019-0993.R1.
crossref pmid pdf
10. Schlosser TP, Abelin-Genevois K, Homans J, et al. Comparison of different strategies on three-dimensional correction of AIS: which plane will suffer? Eur Spine J 2021;30:645–52. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-020-06659-2
crossref pmid
11. Tambe AD, Panikkar SJ, Millner PA, Tsirikos AI. Current concepts in the surgical management of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Bone Joint J 2018;100-B:415–24. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620x.100b4.bjj-2017-0846.r2.
crossref pmid pdf
12. Raitio A, Syvanen J, Helenius I. Vertebral body tethering: indications, surgical technique, and a systematic review of published results. J Clin Med 2022;11:2576. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm11092576
crossref pmid pmc
13. Ahmad A, Dwaik M, Vo N, et al. Controlling the apex in early onset scoliosis through active apex correction (APC) non fusion growth modulating technique: is it a myth? Global Spine J 2025;15:2176–82. https://doi.org/10.1177/21925682241289902
crossref pmid
14. Newton PO, Takahashi Y, Yang Y, et al. Anterior vertebral body tethering for thoracic idiopathic scoliosis leads to asymmetric growth of the periapical vertebrae. Spine Deform 2022;10:553–61. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43390-021-00464-7
crossref pmid
15. Garg B, Mehta N, Bansal T, Malhotra R. EOS(R) imaging: concept and current applications in spinal disorders. J Clin Orthop Trauma 2020;11:786–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcot.2020.06.012
crossref pmid pmc
16. Glaser DA, Doan J, Newton PO. Comparison of 3-dimensional spinal reconstruction accuracy: biplanar radiographs with EOS versus computed tomography. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2012;37:1391–7. https://doi.org/10.1097/brs.0b013e3182518a15
crossref pmid
17. Wishart BD, Kivlehan E. Neuromuscular scoliosis: when, who, why and outcomes. Phys Med Rehabil Clin N Am 2021;32:547–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pmr.2021.02.007
crossref pmid
18. Vo NQ, Van Vo K, Pham VT. Initial evaluation of the relationship between maximal axial vertebra rotation and the rotation deformity in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Spine Deform 2024;12:1311–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43390-024-00901-3
crossref pmid
19. Schlosser TP, van Stralen M, Brink RC, et al. Three-dimensional characterization of torsion and asymmetry of the intervertebral discs versus vertebral bodies in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2014;39:E1159–66. https://doi.org/10.1097/brs.0000000000000467
crossref pmid
20. Tauchi R, Tsuji T, Ohara T, et al. Reconstructive surgery for the post-hemiepiphysiodesis residual deformity in congenital scoliosis. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol 2013;23(Suppl 1):S111–3. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00590-013-1183-4
crossref pmid
21. Wilkinson JT, Songy CE, Bumpass DB, McCullough FL, McCarthy RE. Curve modulation and apex migration using Shilla growth guidance rods for early-onset scoliosis at 5-year follow-up. J Pediatr Orthop 2019;39:400–5. https://doi.org/10.1097/bpo.0000000000000983
crossref pmid
22. Ginsburg G, Mulconrey DS, Browdy J. Transpedicular hemiepiphysiodesis and posterior instrumentation as a treatment for congenital scoliosis. J Pediatr Orthop 2007;27:387–91. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.bpb.0000271312.95621.b0
crossref pmid
23. Sarlak AY, Atmaca H, Tosun B, Musaoglu R, Buluc L. Isolated pedicle screw instrumented correction for the treatment of thoracic congenital scoliosis. J Spinal Disord Tech 2010;23:525–9. https://doi.org/10.1097/bsd.0b013e3181c2f51b
crossref pmid
24. Alanay A, Dede O, Yazici M. Convex instrumented hemiepiphysiodesis with concave distraction: a preliminary report. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2012;470:1144–50. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-011-1878-y
crossref pmid
25. Demirkiran G, Yilmaz G, Kaymaz B, et al. Safety and efficacy of instrumented convex growth arrest in treatment of congenital scoliosis. J Pediatr Orthop 2014;34:275–81. https://doi.org/10.1097/bpo.0000000000000090
crossref pmid
26. Hammad AM, Emar M, Shahin F, et al. A prospective multicenter ≥2 years clinical study of the active apex correction (APC) technique in early onset scoliosis (EOS) patients. Global Spine J 2025;15:1174–85. https://doi.org/10.1177/21925682241229677
crossref pmid
27. Louer CR, Upasani VV, Hurry JK, et al. Growth modulation response in vertebral body tethering depends primarily on magnitude of concave vertebral body growth. Spine Deform 2024;12:1689–98. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43390-024-00909-9
crossref pmid pmc
28. Agarwal A, Aker L, Ahmad AA. Active apex correction (modified SHILLA technique) versus distraction-based growth rod fixation: what do the correction parameters say? Spine Surg Relat Res 2020;4:31–6. https://doi.org/10.22603/ssrr.2019-0045
crossref pmid
29. Skov ST, Li H, Hansen ES, et al. New growth rod concept provides three dimensional correction, spinal growth, and preserved pulmonary function in early-onset scoliosis. Int Orthop 2020;44:1773–83. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-020-04604-y
crossref pmid


ABOUT
ARTICLE CATEGORY

Browse all articles >

BROWSE ARTICLES
EDITORIAL POLICY
FOR CONTRIBUTORS
Editorial Office
Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine
88, Olympic-ro 43-gil, Songpa-gu, Seoul 05505, Korea
Tel: +82-2-3010-3530    Fax: +82-2-3010-8555    E-mail: asianspinejournal@gmail.com                
Korean Society of Spine Surgery
82, Gumi-ro 173beon-gil, Bundang-gu, Seongnam-si, Gyeonggi-do, 13620, Korea
Tel: +82-31-966-3413    Fax: +82-2-831-3414    E-mail: office@spine.or.kr                

Copyright © 2026 by Korean Society of Spine Surgery.

Developed in M2PI

Close layer
prev next