Comparison of surgical treatment in Lenke 5C adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: anterior dual rod versus posterior pedicle fixation surgery: a comparison of two practices.

Department of Orthopaedics, Spine Austin, 3001 Beecaves Road, Austin, TX 78746, USA.
Spine (Impact Factor: 2.16). 09/2009; 34(18):1942-51. DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181a3c777
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Multicenter analysis of 2 groups of patients surgically treated for Lenke 5C adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS).
Compare patients with Lenke 5C scoliosis surgically treated with anterior spinal fusion with dual rod instrumentation and anterior column support with patients surgically treated with posterior release and pedicle screw instrumentation.
Treatment of single, structural, lumbar, and thoracolumbar curves in patients with AIS has been the subject of some debate. Advocates of the anterior approach assert that their technique spares posterior musculature and may save distal fusion levels, and that with dual rods and anterior column support the issues with nonunion and kyphosis have been obviated. Advocates of the posterior approach assert that with the change to posterior pedicle screw based instrumentation that correction and levels are equivalent, and the posterior approach avoids the issues with nonunion and kyphosis. This report directly compares the results of posterior versus anterior instrumented fusions in the operative treatment of adolescent idiopathic Lenke 5C curves.
We analyzed 62 patients with Lenke 5C based on radiographic and clinical data at 2 institutions: 31 patients treated with posterior, pedicle-screw instrumented fusions at 1 institution (group PSF); and 31 patients with anterior, dual-rod instrumented fusions at another institution (group ASF). Multiple clinical and radiographic parameters were evaluated and compared.
The mean age, preoperative major curve magnitude, and preoperative lowest instrumented vertebral (LIV) tilt were similar in both groups (age: PSF = 15.5 years, ASF = 15.6 years; curve size: PSF = 50.3 degrees +/- 7.0 degrees , ASF = 49.0 degrees +/- 6.6 degrees ; LIV tilt: PSF = 27.5 degrees +/- 6.5 degrees , ASF = 27.8 degrees +/- 6.2 degrees ). After surgery, the major curve corrected to an average of 6.3 degrees +/- 3.2 degrees (87.6% +/- 5.8%) in the PSF group, compared with 12.1 degrees +/- 7.4 degrees (75.7% +/- 14.8%) in the ASF group (P < 0.01). At final follow-up, the major curve measured 8.0 degrees +/- 3.0 degrees (84.2% +/- 5.8% correction) in the PSF group, compared with 15.9 degrees +/- 9.0 degrees (66.6% +/- 17.9%) in the ASF group (P = 0.01). This represented a loss of correction of 1.7 degrees +/- 1.9 degrees (3.4% +/- 3.7%) in the PSF group, and 3.8 degrees +/- 4.2 degrees (9.4% +/- 10.7%) in the ASF group (P = 0.028). The LIV tilt decreased to 4.1 degrees +/- 3.4 degrees after surgery in the PSF group, and 4.5 degrees +/- 3.7 degrees in the ASF group. At final follow-up, the LIV tilt was 5.1 degrees +/- 3.5 degrees in the PSF group, and 4.5 degrees +/- 3.7 degrees in the ASF group. EBL was identical in both groups, and length of hospital stay was significantly (P < 0.01) shorter in the PSF group (4.8 vs. 6.1 days). There were no complications in either group which extended hospital stay or required an unplanned second surgery.
At a minimum of 2-year follow-up, adolescents with Lenke 5C curves demonstrated statistically significantly better curve correction, less loss of correction over time, and shorter hospital stays when treated with a posterior release with pedicle screw instrumented fusion compared with an anterior instrumented fusion with dual rods for similar patient populations.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Study Design. Retrospective analysis of a prospectively collected, consecutive, nonrandomized series of patientsObjective. To assess the surgical outcomes of the simultaneous double-rod rotation technique for treating Lenke 1 thoracic adolescent idiopathic scoliosisSummary of Background Data. With the increasing popularity of segmental pedicle screw spinal reconstruction for treating adolescent idiopathic scoliosis, concerns regarding the limited ability to correct hypokyphosis have also increased.Methods. A consecutive series of 32 patients with Lenke 1 main thoracic adolescent idiopathic scoliosis treated with the simultaneous double-rod rotation technique at our institution were included. Outcome measures included patient demographics, radiographic measurements, and Scoliosis Research Society questionnaire scores.Results. All 32 patients were followed-up for a minimum of 2 years (average, 3.6 years). The average main thoracic Cobb angle correction rate and the correction loss at the final follow-up were 67.8% and 3.3°, respectively. The average preoperative thoracic kyphosis (T5-12) was 11.9°, which improved significantly to 20.5° (p < 0.0001) at the final follow-up. An increase in thoracic kyphosis was significantly correlated with an increase in lumbar lordosis at the final follow-up (r = 0.42). The average preoperative vertebral rotation angle was 19.7°, which improved significantly after surgery to 14.9° (p = 0.0001). There was no correlation between change in thoracic kyphosis and change in apical vertebral rotation (r = -0.123). The average preoperative total Scoliosis Research Society questionnaire score was 3.0, which significantly improved to 4.4 (p < 0.0001) at the final follow-up. Throughout surgery and even after, there were no instrumentation failures, pseudarthrosis, infection of the surgical site, or clinically relevant neurovascular complications.Conclusion. The simultaneous double-rod rotation technique for Lenke 1 adolescent idiopathic scoliosis provides significant sagittal correction of the main thoracic curve, while maintaining sagittal profiles and correcting coronal and axial deformities.
    Spine 04/2014; · 2.16 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To determine fusion necessity to one level below lower-end vertebra (LEV+1) in selective posterior fusion of moderate thoracolumbar/lumbar (TL/L) idiopathic scoliosis. A total of 37 patients with moderate TL/L idiopathic scoliosis (Cobb angle of TL/L curve between 30° and 60°) were identified and three patients with TL/L curve Cobb angle more than 60° were excluded. And the follow-up period was at least 2 years. Lowest instrumented vertebra (LIV) was one level proximal to LEV in three patients, LEV in 22 patients and LEV+1 in 12 patients. The three patients with TL/L Cobb angle more than 60° were all fused to LEV+1. Clinical and various radiographic measurements were collected before surgery, post-surgery and during last follow-up, and analytical comparisons were made between LIV = LEV patients and LIV = LEV+1 patients. No significant difference was observed regarding clinical and radiographic parameters between LEV group and LEV+1 group preoperatively except LIV disc angle and LIV translation. The correction rate of unfused thoracic curve and TL/L curve was 52.7 and 79.9 % in LEV group and 52.5 and 83.7 % in LEV+1 group at the last follow-up, indicating no significant difference (P = 0.976 and P = 0.415, respectively). Coronal balance and sagittal alignments were also comparable between the two groups. LIV translation was slightly less in LEV+1 group (P = 0.028) at the last follow-up on the basis that LEV+1 was less translated than LEV preoperatively. Our analysis almost showed no benefit for fusing to LEV+1 in moderate TL/L idiopathic scoliosis patients undergoing posterior selective fusion with pedicle screws. For patients with TL/L Cobb angle more than 60°, the distal fusion level probably needs to be LEV+1.
    European Spine Journal 03/2014; · 2.47 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Failure to select the appropriate lowest instrumented vertebra (LIV) in selective lumbar fusion (SLF) for thoracolumbar/lumbar curves (LC) can result in adding-on in the lumbar curve (LC) or the need for fusion extension due to a decompensating thoracic curve (TC). The selection criteria that predict optimal outcomes still need to be refined. The objectives of the current study were to identify risk factors for failure of anterior scoliosis correction and fusion (ASF) as well as predictors of optimal outcomes and ASF efficacy for SLF.
    European Spine Journal 06/2014; 23(12). · 2.47 Impact Factor