Postoperative Disc Wedging in Adolescent Idiopathic Thoracolumbar/Lumbar Scoliosis:a Comparison of Anterior and Posterior Approaches

doi:10.1016/S1001-9294(10)60041-7

Abstract

Abstract: Objective To evaluate the different influences of anterior and posterior correction and fusion approaches upon disc wedging in adolescent idiopathic thoracolumbar/lumbar scoliosis. Methods 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. Results 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 18.9∓11.1?? and 7.7∓5.6??, respectively, with an average correction loss of 6.8∓6.5?? and 2.7∓3.3??, 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??∓3.0??, 5.7??∓3.0??, and 8.6??∓4.4?? in group A, and 2.4∓3.2??, 3.3∓3.4??, and 3.7∓3.6?? 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). Conclusion 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.

Key words: adolescent idiopathic scoliosis, thoracolumbar/lumbar curve, anterior fusion, posterior fusion, disc wedging

Bin Yu, Yi-peng Wang, Gui-xing Qiu, Jian-guo Zhang, Jian-xiong Shen, Yu Zhao, Shu-gang Li and Qi-yi Li. Postoperative Disc Wedging in Adolescent Idiopathic Thoracolumbar/Lumbar Scoliosis:a Comparison of Anterior and Posterior Approaches[J].Chinese Medical Sciences Journal, 2010, 25(3): 156-161.

References 16

1.	Majd ME, Castro FP Jr, Holt RT. Anterior fusion for idiopathic scoliosis. Spine 2000; 25:696-702.
2.	Satake K, Lenke LG, Kim YJ, et al. Analysis of the lowest instrumented vertebra following anterior spinal fusion of thoracolumbar/lumbar adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: can we predict postoperative disc wedging Spine 2005; 30:418-26.
3.	Wang Y, Qiu G, Yu B, et al. The changes of the interspace angle after anterior correction and instrumentation in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis patients. J Orthop Surg Res 2007; 2:17.
4.	Liu Y, Li M, Zhu XD, et al. Retrospective analysis of anterior correction and fusion for adolescent idiopathic thoracolumbar/lumbar scoliosis: the relationship between preserving mobile segments and trunk balance. Int Orthop 2009; 33:191-6.
5.	Kelly DM, McCarthy RE, McCullough FL, et al. Long-term outcomes of anterior spinal fusion with instrumentation for thoracolumbar and lumbar curves in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Spine 2010; 35:194-8.
6.	Halm H, Niemeyer T, Link T, et al. Segmental pedicle screw instrumentation in idiopathic thoracolumbar and lumbar scoliosis. Eur Spine J 2000; 9:191-7.
7.	Monney G, Kaelin AJ. Short posterior fusion for patients with thoracolumbar idiopathic scoliosis. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1999; (364):32-9.
8.	Shufflebarger HL, Geck MJ, Clark CE. The posterior approach for lumbar and thoracolumbar adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: posterior shortening and pedicle screws. Spine 2004; 29:269-76.
9.	Stasikelis PJ, Miller WD, Wilson C, et al. Spine behavior caudal to instrumentation in King II and IV curves. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2002; (400):132-9.
10	Qiu G, Zhang J, Wang Y, et al. A new operative classification of idiopathic scoliosis: a Peking Union Medical College method. Spine 2005; 30:1419-26.
11	Lenke LG, Betz RR, Harms J, et al. Adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: a new classification to determine extent of spinal arthrodesis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2001; 83-A:1169-81.
12	Hall JE, Millis MB, Snyder BD. Short segment anterior instrumentation for thoracolumbar scoliosis. In: Bridwell KH, DeWald RL, editors. The textbook of spinal surgery. 2nd ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 1997 .p. 665-74.
13	Kaneda K, Shono Y, Satoh S, et al. New anterior instrumentation for the management of thoracolumbar and lumbar scoliosis. Application of the Kaneda two-rod system. Spine 1996; 21:1250-61.
14	Sanders AE, Baumann R, Brown H, et al. Selective anterior fusion of thoracolumbar/lumbar curves in adolescents: when can the associated thoracic curve been left unfused Spine 2003; 28:706-13.
15	Li M, Ni J, Fang X, et al. Comparison of selective anterior versus posterior screw instrumentation in Lenke5C adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Spine 2009; 34:1162-6.
16	Geck MJ, Rinella A, Hawthorne D, et al. Comparison of surgical treatment in Lenke 5C adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: anterior dual rod versus posterior pedicle fixation surgery??a comparison of two practices. Spine 2009; 34:1942-51.

Early edition

Current issue

Archive

Specialties & Topics

Author center

Reviewer center