1. Lenke LG. The Lenke classification system of operative adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Neurosurg Clin N Am 2007;18:199-206.
2. Li J, Zhao Z, Tseng C, et al. Selective fusion in Lenke 5 adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. World Neurosurg 2018;118:e784-91.
3. Hu B, Yang X, Lyu Q, et al. Comparison of extending fusion to thoracic curve versus thoracolumbar/lumbar fusion in posterior fusion of patients with Lenke 5C: variation in upper end vertebrae tilt affected coronal balance. World Neurosurg 2019;121:e827-35.
5. Hu B, Yang X, Yang H, et al. Coronal imbalance in Lenke 5C adolescent idiopathic scoliosis regarding selecting the lowest instrumented vertebra: lower end vertebra versus lower end vertebra +1 in posterior fusion. World Neurosurg 2018;117:e522-9.
8. Gavotto A, Risser A, Severac F, et al. Influence of age and severity of Lenke 5 or 6 idiopathic scoliosis on postoperative quality of life in adult patients. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 2023 Oct 31 103742. doi: 10.1016/j.otsr.2023.103742. [Epub].
9. Xu L, Chen X, Qiao J, et al. Coronal imbalance after threecolumn osteotomy in thoracolumbar congenital kyphoscoliosis: incidence and risk factors. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2019;44:E99-106.
10. Banno T, Yamato Y, Oba H, et al. Risk factors and clinical impact of persistent coronal imbalance after posterior spinal fusion in thoracolumbar/lumbar idiopathic scoliosis. J Neurosurg Spine 2022;37:883-92.
12. Wang Y, Bünger CE, Zhang Y, et al. Lowest instrumented vertebra selection for Lenke 5C scoliosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2013;38:E894-900.
13. Daubs MD, Lenke LG, Bridwell KH, et al. Does correction of preoperative coronal imbalance make a difference in outcomes of adult patients with deformity? Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2013;38:476-83.
15. Hernandez T, Thenard T, Vergari C, et al. Coronal trunk imbalance in idiopathic scoliosis: does gravity line localisation confirm the physical findings? Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 2018;104:617-22.
17. Bao H, Yan P, Qiu Y, et al. Coronal imbalance in degenerative lumbar scoliosis: prevalence and influence on surgical decision-making for spinal osteotomy. Bone Joint J 2016;98-B:1227-33.
19. Shu S, Zhang T, Jing W, et al. Hyper-selective posterior fusion in Lenke 5C adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2020;45:1269-76.
21. Matsumura A, Iwamae M, Namikawa T, et al. Spontaneous improvement of postoperative coronal imbalance following selective thoracolumbar-lumbar fusion in Lenke 5C adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. World Neurosurg 2021;151:e241-9.
25. Lin Y, Chen W, Chen A, et al. Anterior versus posterior selective fusion in treating adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis of radiologic parameters. World Neurosurg 2018;111:e830-44.
26. Hu Z, Zhao Z, Li J, et al. Comparison of clinical and radiologic outcome of three-dimensional correction in Lenke 5C curve: uniplanar versus polyaxial pedicle screws. World Neurosurg 2018;114:e729-34.
27. Baghdadi S, Cahill P, Anari J, et al. Evidence behind upper instrumented vertebra selection in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: a systematic and critical analysis review. JBJS Rev 2021;9(9.
28. Anari JB, Tatad A, Cahill PJ, et al. The impact of posterior spinal fusion (PSF) on coronal balance in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS): a new classification and trends in the postoperative period. J Pediatr Orthop 2020;40:e788-93.
30. Shufflebarger HL, Geck MJ, Clark CE. The posterior approach for lumbar and thoracolumbar adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: posterior shortening and pedicle screws. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2004;29:269-76. discussion 276.
32. Zhuang Q, Zhang J, Wang S, et al. How to select the lowest instrumented vertebra in Lenke type 5 adolescent idiopathic scoliosis patients? Spine J 2021;21:141-9.
34. Sarwahi V, Hasan S, Wendolowski S, et al. A newer way of determining LIV in AIS patients: rotation of the touched vertebrae. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2022;47:1321-7.