Minimum 10 years follow-up surgical results of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis patients treated with TSRH instrumentation.

Department of Orthopedics and Traumatology, Faculty of Medicine, UFUK University, Mithatpasa Cad. 59/2, Kyzylay, Ankara 06420, Turkey.
European Spine Journal (Impact Factor: 2.47). 03/2007; 16(3):381-91. DOI: 10.1007/s00586-006-0147-3
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Last two decades witnessed great advances in the surgical treatment of idiopathic scoliosis. However, the number of studies evaluating the long-term results of these treatment methods is relatively low. During recent years, besides radiological and clinical studies, questionnaires like SRS-22 assessing subjective functional and mental status and life-quality of patients have gained importance for the evaluation of these results. In this study, surgical outcome and Turkish SRS-22 questionnaire results of 109 late-onset adolescent idiopathic scoliosis patients surgically treated with third-generation instrumentation [Texas Scottish Rite Hospital (TSRH) System] and followed for a minimum of 10 years were evaluated. The balance was analyzed clinically and radiologically by the measurement of the lateral trunk shift (LT), shift of head (SH), and shift of stable vertebra (SS). Mean age of the patients was 14.4+/-1.9 and mean follow-up period was 136.9+/-12.7 months. When all the patients were included, the preoperative mean Cobb angle of major curves in the frontal plane was 60.8 degrees +/-17.5 degrees . Major curves that were corrected by 38.7+/-22.1% in the bending radiograms, postoperatively achieved a correction of 64.0+/-15.8%. At the last follow-up visit, 10.3 degrees +/-10.8 degrees of correction loss was recorded in major curves in the frontal plane with 50.5+/-23.1% final correction rate. Also, the mean postoperative and final kyphosis angles and lumbar lordosis angles were 37.7 degrees +/-7.4 degrees , 37.0 degrees +/-8.4 degrees , 37.5 degrees +/-8.7 degrees , and 36.3 degrees +/-8.5 degrees , respectively. A statistically significant correction was obtained at the sagittal plane; mean postoperative changes compared to preoperative values were 7.9 degrees and 12.9 degrees for thoracic and lumbar regions, respectively. On the other hand, normal physiological thoracic and lumbar sagittal contours were achieved in 83.5% and 67.9% of the patients, respectively. Postoperatively, a statistically significant correction was obtained in LT, SH, and SS values (P<0.05). Although, none of the patients had completely balanced curves preoperatively, in 95.4% of the patients the curves were found to be completely balanced or clinically well balanced postoperatively. This rate was maintained at the last follow-up visit. Overall, four patients (3.7%) had implant failure. Early superficial infection was observed in three (2.8%) patients. Radiologically presence of significant consolidation, absence of implant failure, and correction loss, and clinical relief of pain were considered as the proof of a posterior solid fusion mass. About ten (9.2%) patients were considered to have pseudoarthrosis: four patients with implant failure and six patients with correction loss over 15 degrees at the frontal plane. About four (3.7%) patients among the first 20 patients had neurological deficit only wake-up test was used for neurological monitoring of these patients. No neurological deficit was observed in the 89 patients for whom intraoperative neurological monitoring with SSEP and TkMMEP was performed. Overall, average scores of SRS-22 questionnaire for general self-image, function, mental status, pain, and satisfaction from treatment were 3.8+/-0.7, 3.6+/-0.7, 4.0+/-0.8, 3.6+/-0.8, and 4.6+/-0.3, respectively at the last follow-up visit. Results of about 10 years of follow-up these patients treated with TSRH instrumentation suggest that the method is efficient for the correction of frontal and sagittal plane deformities and trunk balance. In addition, it results in a better life-quality.

Download full-text


Available from: Alper Kaya, Jan 18, 2015
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Surgical intervention for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) should be proven to alter the natural history without introducing iatrogenic complications. The risks of surgery should be substantiated by a body of scientific research, which should show a clear superiority of surgery over observation, both in the short term and the long term. The purpose of this review was to conduct a systematic search of the literature to critically evaluate the scientific evidence on the long-term outcomes and complications of surgical intervention for AIS. Our search identified 39 distinct patient populations with a minimum average follow-up of 5 years. No long-term, prospective controlled studies exist to support the hypothesis that surgical intervention for AIS is superior to natural history. Although surgery reliably arrests the progression of deformity, achieves permanent correction, and improves appearance, there is no medical necessity for surgery based on the current body of literature. However, the surgeon must not underestimate the psychological indication that occurs when a patient is no longer able to cope with the deformity.
    Journal of pediatric orthopedics 01/2011; 31(1 Suppl):S61-8. DOI:10.1097/BPO.0b013e3181fd87d5 · 1.43 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Surgical management of idiopathic scoliosis is based on the natural history of this spinal disorder and on the likelihood of developing a worsening deformity. Anterior surgical treatments continue to evolve and provide advantages over posterior procedures in specific instances. Open and thoracoscopic anterior approaches allow direct access to the anterior stabilizing structures of the spine, enable mobilization of a rigid deformity, and provide a large surface area for arthrodesis. Thoracoscopic procedures provide a more cosmetically appealing alternative to a large midline posterior or anterolateral thoracotomy scar. Although the indications and contraindications for anterior versus posterior surgical intervention (for thoracic and thoracolumbar curve patterns) have been defined to some degree, there remains appropriate flexibility in the decision-making process, allowing the surgeon to make an optimal recommendation for each patient based on surgeon experience and patient needs.
    Orthopedic Clinics of North America 11/2007; 38(4):531-40, vi. DOI:10.1016/j.ocl.2007.05.003 · 1.70 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Historically, the treatment options for AIS, the most common form of scoliosis are: Exercises, in-patient rehabilitation, braces and surgery. While there is evidence in the form of prospective controlled studies that Scoliosis Intensive Rehabilitation (SIR) and braces can alter the natural history of the condition, there is no review on prospective controlled trials for surgical treatment. The aim of this review was to perform a systematic search of the Pub Med literature to reveal the evidence on scoliosis surgery. A systematic review has been performed using the Pub Med database. Literature has been searched for the outcome parameter; 'rate of progression' and only prospective controlled studies that have considered the treatment versus the natural history have been included. No controlled study, not in the short, mid or long term, searched within the review, has been found to reveal evidence to support the hypothesis that the effects of surgery as a treatment option for AIS is superior to natural history. No evidence has been found in terms of prospective controlled studies to support surgical intervention from the medical point of view. In the light of the unknown long-term effects of surgery and in concluding on the lack of evidence already found that surgery might change the signs and symptoms of scoliosis, a randomized controlled trial (RCT) is long overdue. Until such a time that such evidence exists, there can be no medical indication for surgery. The indications for surgery are limited for cosmetic reasons in severe cases and only if the patient and the family agree with this.
    Disability and Rehabilitation 02/2008; 30(10):799-807. DOI:10.1080/09638280801889717 · 1.84 Impact Factor