Literature DB >> 14560195

Factors involved in the decision to perform a selective versus nonselective fusion of Lenke 1B and 1C (King-Moe II) curves in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis.

Peter O Newton1, Frances D Faro, Lawrence G Lenke, Randal R Betz, David H Clements, Thomas G Lowe, Thomas R Haher, Andrew A Merola, Linda P D'Andrea, Michelle Marks, Dennis R Wenger.   

Abstract

STUDY
DESIGN: A retrospective evaluation of 203 adolescent idiopathic scoliosis patients with Lenke 1B or 1C (King-Moe II) type curves.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the incidence of inclusion of the lumbar curve in the treatment of this type of deformity as well as radiographic factors associated with lumbar curve fusion. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: In patients with structural thoracic curves and compensatory lumbar curves, many authors have recommended fusing only the thoracic curve (selective thoracic fusion). Studies have shown that correction of the thoracic curve results in spontaneous correction of the unfused lumbar curve; however, in some cases, truncal decompensation develops. Though there have been various attempts to define more accurately what type of curve pattern should undergo selective fusion, controversy continues in this area.
METHODS: Measurements were obtained from the preoperative standing posteroanterior and side-bending radiographs of 203 patients with Lenke Type 1B or 1C curves from five sites of the DePuy AcroMed Harms Study Group. Patients were divided into two groups depending on their most distal vertebra instrumented: the "selective thoracic fusion" group included patients who were fused to L1 or above and the "nonselective fusion" group included patients fused to L2 or below. A statistical comparison was conducted to identify variables associated with the choice for a nonselective fusion.
RESULTS: The incidence of fusion of the lumbar curve ranged from 6% to 33% at the different patient care sites. Factors associated with nonselective fusion included larger preoperative lumbar curve magnitude (42 +/- 10 degrees vs. 37 +/- 7 degrees, P < 0.01), greater displacement of the lumbar apical vertebra from the central sacral vertical line, (3.1 +/- 1.4 cm vs. 2.2 +/- 0.8 cm, P < 0.01), and a smaller thoracic to lumbar curve magnitude ratio (1.31 +/- 0.29 vs. 1.44 +/- 0.30, P = 0.01).
CONCLUSIONS: The characteristics of the compensatory "nonstructural" lumbar curve played a significant role in the surgical decision-making process and varied substantially among members of the study group. Side-bending correction of the lumbar curve to <25 degrees (defining these as Lenke 1, nonstructural lumbar curves) was not sufficientcriteria to perform a selective fusion in some of these cases. The substantial variation in the frequency of fusing the lumbar curve (6% to 33%) confirms that controversy remains about when surgeons feel the lumbar curve can be spared in Lenke 1B and 1C curves. Site-specific analysis revealed that the radiographic features significantly associated with a selective fusion varied according to the site at which the patient was treated. The rate of selective fusion was 92% for the 1B type curves compared to 68% for the 1C curves.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 14560195     DOI: 10.1097/01.BRS.0000092461.11181.CD

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)        ISSN: 0362-2436            Impact factor:   3.468


  19 in total

1.  Lowest instrumented vertebra selection in Lenke 3C and 6C scoliosis: what if we choose lumbar apical vertebra as distal fusion end?

Authors:  Yu Wang; Cody Eric Bünger; Yanqun Zhang; Ebbe Stender Hansen
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2011-11-05       Impact factor: 3.134

2.  Spontaneous lumbar curve correction in selective anterior instrumentation and fusion of idiopathic thoracic scoliosis of Lenke type C.

Authors:  Ulf Liljenqvist; Henry Halm; Viola Bullmann
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2012-04-25       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 3.  [Selective fusion of idiopathic scoliosis with respect to the Lenke classification].

Authors:  U Liljenqvist; T Lerner; V Bullmann
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2009-02       Impact factor: 1.087

4.  Extensive fusion for Lenke 3C and 6C scoliosis: a two year radiographic follow-up.

Authors:  Yu Wang; Cody Eric Bünger; Yanqun Zhang; Ebbe Stender Hansen
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2011-08-14       Impact factor: 3.075

5.  Predictive factors for a distal adjacent disorder with L3 as the lowest instrumented vertebra in Lenke 5C patients.

Authors:  Kei Ando; Shiro Imagama; Zenya Ito; Kazuyoshi Kobayashi; Tetsuro Hida; Kenyu Ito; Akito Tsushima; Yoshimoto Ishikawa; Akiyuki Matsumoto; Yoshihiro Nishida; Naoki Ishiguro
Journal:  Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol       Date:  2016-01

Review 6.  Classification of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS).

Authors:  Dror Ovadia
Journal:  J Child Orthop       Date:  2012-12-25       Impact factor: 1.548

Review 7.  Restoring sagittal and frontal balance following posterior instrumented fusion.

Authors:  Ozgur Dede; Muharrem Yazici
Journal:  Ann Transl Med       Date:  2020-01

8.  Clinical photography in severe idiopathic scoliosis candidate for surgery: is it a useful tool to differentiate among Lenke patterns?

Authors:  Juan Bago; Javier Pizones; Antonia Matamalas; Elisa D'Agata
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2019-08-08       Impact factor: 3.134

9.  Selective thoracic fusion of a left decompensated main thoracic curve: proceed with caution?

Authors:  T Barrett Sullivan; Tracey P Bastrom; Carrie E Bartley; Suken A Shah; Baron S Lonner; Jahangir Asghar; Firoz Miyanji; Peter O Newton; Burt Yaszay
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2017-06-10       Impact factor: 3.134

10.  Analysis of risk factors for loss of lumbar lordosis in patients who had surgical treatment with segmental instrumentation for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis.

Authors:  Per D Trobisch; Amer F Samdani; Randal R Betz; Tracey Bastrom; Joshua M Pahys; Patrick J Cahill
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2013-04-09       Impact factor: 3.134

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.