To tether or fuse? Significant equipoise remains in treatment recommendations for idiopathic scoliosis

Purpose: Vertebral body tethering (VBT) continues to grow in interest from both a patient and surgeon perspective for the treatment of scoliosis. However, the data are limited when it comes to surgeon selection of both procedure type and instrumented levels. This study sought to assess surgeon variability in treatment recommendation and level selection for VBT versus posterior spinal fusion (PSF) for the management of scoliosis. Methods: Surgeon members of the Pediatric Spine Study Group and Harms Study Group were queried for treatment recommendations and proposed upper instrumented vertebra (UIV) and lower instrumented vertebra (LIV) selection for PSF and VBT based on 17 detailed clinical vignettes. Responses were subdivided in each clinical vignette according to surgeon experience and treatment recommendations with assessment of intra-rater reliability. Binomial distribution tests were used to establish equipoise, selecting p < 0.10 to indicate the presence of a treatment choice with consensus set > 70% agreement. For treatment choice, responses were assessed first for consensus on the decision to proceed with PSF or VBT. Results: Thirty-five surgeons with varied experience completed the survey with 26 surgeons (74%) completing the second follow-up survey. Overall, VBT was the recommended treatment by 47% of surgeons, ranging by clinical vignette. Consensus in treatment recommendation was present for 6 clinical vignettes including 3 for VBT and 3 for PSF, with equipoise present for the remaining 11. Of the 17 vignettes, 12 demonstrated moderate intra-observer reliability including the 3 consensus vignettes for VBT. Sanders stage ≤ 3 and smaller curve magnitude were related with VBT recommendation but neither age nor curve flexibility significantly influenced the decision to recommend VBT. Surgeons with high VBT volume, ≥ 11 VBT cases/year, were more likely to recommend VBT than those with low volumes (0–10 cases per year (p < 0.0001)). High VBT volume surgeons demonstrated consensus in VBT recommendation for Lenke 5/6 curves (75% mean recommendation). High VBT volume surgeons had a significantly higher VBT recommendation rate for Lenke 1A, 2A curves (71.8% vs 48.0%, p = 0.012), and Lenke 3 curves (62% vs 26.9%, p = 0.023). Equipoise was present for all vignettes in low volume surgeons. In addition, high VBT volume surgeons trended toward including more instrumented levels than low VBT volume surgeons (7.17 vs 6.69 levels). Conclusion: Significant equipoise is present among pediatric spine surgeons for treatment recommendations regarding VBT and PSF. Surgeon-, patient-, and curve-specific variables were identified to influence treatment recommendations, including surgeon experience, curve subtype, deformity magnitude, and skeletal maturity. This study highlights the need for continued research in identifying the optimal indications for VBT and PSF in the treatment of pediatric spinal deformity.