Thank you very much for your insightful response[1]) to our manuscript[2]). Since the publication of the manuscript, a significant number of patients who underwent posterior thoracolumbar as well as cervical fusion using PSR have been added to our center database. This will certainly pave the way for future publications with more subjects, and thus higher statistical power. A randomized controlled trial is certainly the gold standard method to investigate the true efficacy and clinical advantages of the PSR versus the traditional rods. However, our practice, especially when treating degenerative scoliosis, has shied away from the conventional rod bending and relies heavily on PSR. This is due to several factors. First, we believe this offers better in situ correction with less added stress to the hardware and the biomechanics of the spine. Second, we hypothesize that the PSR may help reduce the rate of proximal junctional failure in patients who undergo correction of adult degenerative scoliosis, and our future studies aim to investigate the rate of PJF in PSR versus the traditional cohort in a large patient series. Finally, with the advent and prevalence of robotics in spinal instrumentation and near future integration of patient-specific rods as part of the system, we believe PSR technology continues to replace the traditional method. The being said, our center is certainly interested in taking part in a multicenter study should there be mutual interest from other centers. Again, thank you very much for your thoughtful comments.Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare that there are no relevant conflicts of interest.