©The Author(s) 2025.
World J Orthop. Dec 18, 2025; 16(12): 110510
Published online Dec 18, 2025. doi: 10.5312/wjo.v16.i12.110510
Published online Dec 18, 2025. doi: 10.5312/wjo.v16.i12.110510
Table 5 Comparisons between halo gravity traction and alternative preoperative strategies
| Ref. | Sample size | Preoperative deformity | Deformity after temporary internal distraction (stage 1) | Deformity after final fusion (stage 2) | Complication | Blood loss (mL) | FEV1% | FVC% | Loss of Correction at final follow up | |
| Grabala et al[38] | HGT | 20 | Cobb angle: 124°; K angle: 96.5° | NA | Cobb angle: 45°; K angle: 45.8° | Neuromonitoring alerts in 15% cases; pin tract infection: 35%; deep infections: 5%; pneumonia: 10%; neck/back pain: 55% | 588 | 60.8 to 70.1 after HGT; 74.4 after fusion; 74.9 at final follow-up | 54.5 to 66.7 after HGT; 73.4 after fusion; 75.9 at final follow up | NR |
| TID | 42 | Cobb angle: 122°; K angle: 92° | NA | Cobb angle: 37.4°; K angle: 36.2° | Neuromonitoring alerts in 12% cases; deep infections: 2%; pneumonia: 5%; neck/back pain: 7% | 282 + 458 in each stage | 58 to 66 after TID; 71.2 after fusion; 78 at final follow up | 49 to 55.2 after TID; 67 after fusion; 76 at final follow up | NR | |
| Oliveira et al[39] | HGT | 12 | Cobb angle: 104.6°; K angle: 43.5° | Cobb after HGT: 85.6° | Cobb angle: 49.5°; K angle: 30.3° | Intraoperative neurodeficit: 3 cases; pneumothorax: 6 cases; implant failure: 1 case; infection: 1 case | 1642.22 ± 1058.79 | NA | NA | NR |
| TID | 7 | Cobb angle: 100°; K angle: 40.7° | Cobb after TID: 94.7° | Cobb angle: 39.5°; K angle: 30.5° | Intraoperative neurodeficit: 4 cases; pneumothorax: 3 cases; implant failure: 2 cases; infection: 1 case | 1400.00 ± 718.33 | NR | NR | NR | |
| Caubet and Emans[40] | HGT | 13 | Cobb angle: 92°; K angle: 99.5° | NA | Cobb angle: 40% improved | 3 patients with neurodeficit; implant loosening in 7 patients | NA | NA | NA | Loss of kyphosis correction: 29%; loss of scoliosis correction: 20% |
| SR | 14 | Cobb angle: 73.3°; K angle: 67.6° | NA | Cobb angle: 63% improve | 2 patients with neurodeficit; implant loosening in 9 patients | NA | NA | NA | Loss of kyphosis correction: 26%; loss of scoliosis correction: 9% | |
| Control group | 71 | NA | Cobb angle: 41% improved | 3 patients with neurodeficit; implant loosening in 20 patients | NA | NA | NA | Loss of kyphosis correction: 15%; loss of scoliosis correction: 5% |
- Citation: Jain MA, Dhawale A, Iqbal MZ, Naseem A, Sagade B, Gorain A, Nene A. Halo gravity traction for pediatric scoliosis and kyphoscoliosis: A review of current evidence and best practices. World J Orthop 2025; 16(12): 110510
- URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/2218-5836/full/v16/i12/110510.htm
- DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5312/wjo.v16.i12.110510