Table 1.
The table represented the overall summaries by the different authors for CD instrumentation in the treatment for AIS
| A | B | C | D | E | F |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2007 |
Boss |
38 |
7 |
satisfaction, functional status and subjective cosmetic improvement was high |
none |
| 2007 |
Bjerkreim |
86 |
10 |
Scores for EuroQol were within the normal range |
45% had back pain within the last year |
| 2006 |
Weigert |
41 |
>2 |
SRS-24: fair or better in all domains |
reoperation rate was 21.6% |
| 2003 |
Helenius |
57 |
13 |
SRS: 97 points |
11% reported back pain often or very often |
| 2003 |
Bago |
110 |
5 |
- |
reoperation rate was 21% |
| 2000 |
Cook |
49 |
9 |
- |
reoperation rate was 24% |
| 1998 |
Lenke |
76 |
6 |
outcome was favourable |
38% reported occasional pain in the spine |
| 1997 | Takahashi | 30 | 6 | the overall clinical results were satisfactory | 20% prevalence of low back pain |
A: year of publication.
B: author’s name.
C: number of patients.
D: mean of follow up in years.
E: positive conclusions.
F: negative conclusions.