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

Matthew J. Geck, Anthony Rinella, Dana Hawthorne, Angel Macagno, Linda Koester, Brenda Sides, Keith Bridwell, Lawrence Lenke, Harry Shufflebarger

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

94 Scopus citations

Abstract

STUDY DESIGN. Multicenter analysis of 2 groups of patients surgically treated for Lenke 5C adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS). OBJECTIVE. 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. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA. 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. METHODS. 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. RESULTS. 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°± 7.0°, ASF = 49.0°± 6.6°; LIV tilt: PSF = 27.5°± 6.5°, ASF = 27.8°± 6.2°). After surgery, the major curve corrected to an average of 6.3°± 3.2°(87.6% ± 5.8%) in the PSF group, compared with 12.1°± 7.4°(75.7% ± 14.8%) in the ASF group (P < 0.01). At final follow-up, the major curve measured 8.0°± 3.0°(84.2% ± 5.8% correction) in the PSF group, compared with 15.9°± 9.0°(66.6% ± 17.9%) in the ASF group (P = 0.01). This represented a loss of correction of 1.7°± 1.9°(3.4% ± 3.7%) in the PSF group, and 3.8°± 4.2°(9.4% ± 10.7%) in the ASF group (P = 0.028). The LIV tilt decreased to 4.1°± 3.4°after surgery in the PSF group, and 4.5°± 3.7°in the ASF group. At final follow-up, the LIV tilt was 5.1°± 3.5°in the PSF group, and 4.5°± 3.7°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. CONCLUSION. 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.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1942-1951
Number of pages10
JournalSpine
Volume34
Issue number18
DOIs
StatePublished - Aug 1 2009

Keywords

  • Adolescent idiopathic scoliosis
  • Anterior dual rod instrumentation
  • Lenke 5C
  • Posterior pedicle screws

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Comparison of surgical treatment in Lenke 5C adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: Anterior dual rod versus posterior pedicle fixation surgery: A comparison of two practices'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this