STUDY DESIGN: A prospective clinical study comparing two instrumentation systems for the correction of idiopathic scoliosis. OBJECTIVES: To measure the short-term three-dimensional changes in the shape of the spine after corrective surgery and compare the Cotrel-Dubousset instrumentation to the more recent Colorado instrumentation to determine whether one system provides better three-dimensional correction. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Adequate three-dimensional correction of scoliotic deformities has been reported with the Cortrel-Dubousset instrumentation system. During the past decade, a new generation of more versatile and user-friendly spinal implants has appeared, but there are no reports available to indicate whether similar or better correction can be obtained with these newer systems. METHODS: The three-dimensional geometry of the thoracic and lumbar spine was documented in the standing position using a three-dimensional reconstruction technique based on multiplanar radiography in 67 adolescents with idiopathic scoliosis undergoing correction by a posterior approach. Changes in spinal shape were measured 3 days before and 1 month after the surgery in 31 patients with Cotrel-Dubousset instrumentation and 36 patients with Colorado instrumentation. RESULTS: In both groups, adequate three-dimensional correction of the scoliotic deformities was documented for thoracic and lumbar curves, with significant changes in the frontal plane, in the plane of maximum curvature, and in its orientation. When comparing both groups, better correction was obtained in the frontal plane with the Colorado instrumentation (65% vs. 48% with Cotrel-Dubousset), a finding that may be explained by the significantly greater proportion of pedicle screws used in this group. CONCLUSION: Both instrumentation techniques achieve an effective and comparable three-dimensional correction of the scoliotic deformities.
STUDY DESIGN: A prospective clinical study comparing two instrumentation systems for the correction of idiopathic scoliosis. OBJECTIVES: To measure the short-term three-dimensional changes in the shape of the spine after corrective surgery and compare the Cotrel-Dubousset instrumentation to the more recent Colorado instrumentation to determine whether one system provides better three-dimensional correction. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Adequate three-dimensional correction of scoliotic deformities has been reported with the Cortrel-Dubousset instrumentation system. During the past decade, a new generation of more versatile and user-friendly spinal implants has appeared, but there are no reports available to indicate whether similar or better correction can be obtained with these newer systems. METHODS: The three-dimensional geometry of the thoracic and lumbar spine was documented in the standing position using a three-dimensional reconstruction technique based on multiplanar radiography in 67 adolescents with idiopathic scoliosis undergoing correction by a posterior approach. Changes in spinal shape were measured 3 days before and 1 month after the surgery in 31 patients with Cotrel-Dubousset instrumentation and 36 patients with Colorado instrumentation. RESULTS: In both groups, adequate three-dimensional correction of the scoliotic deformities was documented for thoracic and lumbar curves, with significant changes in the frontal plane, in the plane of maximum curvature, and in its orientation. When comparing both groups, better correction was obtained in the frontal plane with the Colorado instrumentation (65% vs. 48% with Cotrel-Dubousset), a finding that may be explained by the significantly greater proportion of pedicle screws used in this group. CONCLUSION: Both instrumentation techniques achieve an effective and comparable three-dimensional correction of the scoliotic deformities.
Authors: Raphaël Dumas; Bertrand Blanchard; Robert Carlier; Christian Garreau de Loubresse; Jean-Charles Le Huec; Catherine Marty; Maryse Moinard; Jean-Marc Vital Journal: Med Biol Eng Comput Date: 2007-09-14 Impact factor: 2.602
Authors: Audrey Angelliaume; E Ferrero; K Mazda; M Le Hanneur; F Accabled; J Sales de Gauzy; B Ilharreborde Journal: Eur Spine J Date: 2016-11-05 Impact factor: 3.134
Authors: Sebastien Pesenti; Jean-Luc Clément; Brice Ilharreborde; Christian Morin; Yann Philippe Charles; Henri François Parent; Philippe Violas; Marc Szadkowski; Louis Boissière; Jean-Luc Jouve; Federico Solla Journal: Eur Spine J Date: 2022-02-28 Impact factor: 3.134
Authors: Samuel Kadoury; Farida Cheriet; Marie Beauséjour; Ian A Stokes; Stefan Parent; Hubert Labelle Journal: Eur Spine J Date: 2008-11-13 Impact factor: 3.134