Comparison of Surgical Treatment in Lenke 5C Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis: Anterior Dual Rod Versus Posterior Pedicle Fixation Surgery

Department of Orthopaedics, Spine Austin, 3001 Beecaves Road, Austin, TX 78746, USA.
Spine (Impact Factor: 2.3). 09/2009; 34(18):1942-51. DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181a3c777
Source: PubMed


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.

81 Reads
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: In addition to the statistical evaluation of measurements made on physiological processes, there is an increasing demand for the theoretical system description in terms of cause-effect relationship as well as the quantitative determination of such processes. The first part of this article deals with a mathematical summary of compartment analysis while the second part introduces a new event recognition method
    No preview · Article · Jan 1995
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To evaluate the different influences of anterior and posterior correction and fusion approaches upon disc wedging in adolescent idiopathic thoracolumbar/lumbar scoliosis. The retrospective study was conducted with the medical records and radiographs of adolescent idiopathic thoracolumbar/lumbar scoliosis patients that underwent anterior (group A) or posterior (group B) correction and fusion surgery from December 1998 to May 2008. The correction of the main curve and changes of the disc wedging were analyzed. Fifty-three patients were included, 26 in group A and 27 in group B. The mean coronal Cobb angles of the main curve in group A and group B were significantly corrected after surgery (P < 0.05), with an average correction rate of 75.2% and 88.2%, respectively. Upon final follow-up, the coronal Cobb angles of the two groups were 18.90 +/- 11.1 degrees and 7.70 +/- 5.6 degrees, respectively, with an average correction loss of 6.8 degrees +/- 6.5 degrees and 2.7 degrees +/- 3.3 degrees, respectively. The coronal Cobb angle after operation and at final follow-up, and the correction rate were significantly better in group B than those in group A (P < 0.05), while the coronal Cobb angle loss in group A was greater than that in group B (P < 0.05). The disc wedging before operation, after operation, and at final follow-up were 3.2 degrees +/- 3.0 degrees, 5.7 degrees +/- 3.0 degrees, and 8.6 degrees +/- 4.4 degrees in group A, and 2.4 degrees +/- 3.2 degrees, 3.3 degrees +/- 3.4 degrees, and 3.7 degrees +/- 3.6 degrees in group B, respectively. Postoperative disc wedging was significantly larger compared with preoperative measurements in group A (P < 0.05), but not in group B (P > 0.05). The difference between disc wedging at final follow-up and that after surgery was significant in group A (P < 0.05), but not in group B (P > 0.05). Between the two groups, group A had larger disc angles after operation and at final follow-up (P < 0.05), and a greater loss of disc angle (P < 0.05). For adolescent idiopathic thoracolumbar/lumbar scoliosis, posterior approach using all pedicle screws might produce a better result in terms of disc wedging compared with anterior approach.
    Full-text · Article · Sep 2010 · Chinese Medical Sciences Journal
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The traditional method of thoracoabdominal retroperitoneal approach requires dissection of diaphragm which bears potential complications such as postoperatively weakened abdominal breathing and dysfunction of diaphragm. Mini-open anterior instrumentation with diaphragm sparing is designed to minimize the damage to diaphragm and improve cosmesis. This study compared the traditional anterior instrumentation and mini-open anterior instrumentation under the hypothesis that both results in similar surgical outcomes in treating thoracolumbar scoliosis. In Group A, 38 patients with an average age of 16.5 years underwent mini-open anterior instrumentation with diaphragm sparing. The average standing coronal Cobb angle was 56.4° in Group A. Thirty-eight patients with average age of 16.7 years in Group B received traditional open approach. The preoperative average Cobb angle was 55.8° in Group B. The average correction rate of coronal curve was 78% in group A while 75% in group B. No statistical difference between the two groups in terms of coronal curve correction, sagittal profile restoration and estimated blood loss was observed. The operation time was significantly higher in Group A than that in Group B. All patients in the two groups had good healing of incisions without neurological and instrumental complications during minimal 2 year follow-up. In Groups A and B, two patients suffered from pleural effusion, respectively. The wedging of the vertebral discs distal to the lowest fused level occurred in three and four patients in Group A and B, respectively. One case in group B was found to be suspicious pseudoarthrosis without loss of correction. Mini-open anterior instrumentation with diaphragm sparing could minimize the surgical invasion as well as achieve similar clinical outcomes compared with classical anterior approach.
    Preview · Article · Feb 2011 · European Spine Journal
Show more