Literature DB >> 15371706

Comparative analysis of pedicle screw versus hook instrumentation in posterior spinal fusion of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis.

Yongjung J Kim1, Lawrence G Lenke, Samuel K Cho, Keith H Bridwell, Brenda Sides, Kathy Blanke.   

Abstract

STUDY
DESIGN: A retrospective matched cohort study.
OBJECTIVE: To comprehensively compare the 2-year postoperative results of posterior correction and fusion with segmental pedicle screw instrumentation versus those with hook constructs in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) treated at a single institution. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Despite the reports of satisfactory correction and maintenance of scoliotic curves by pedicle screw instrumentation compared to hook constructs, few reports on the comprehensive comparison of segmental pedicle screw instrumentation versus hook instrumentation exist.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 52 patients with AIS at a single institution who underwent a posterior spinal fusion with segmental pedicle screw (26) or hook (26) instrumentation were sorted and matched according to four criteria: similar age at surgery (14.8 years in pedicle screw group and 14.2 years in hook group), identical Lenke curve types, same number of fused vertebrae (11.7 in each group), and identical operative methods (18 posterior spinal fusions with thoracoplasty, 4 posterior spinal fusions with iliac crest bone graft, and 4 anterior and posterior spinal fusions in each group). Patients were evaluated before surgery, immediate after surgery, and at the 2-year follow-up according to radiographic changes in curve correction, pulmonary function tests, operative time, intraoperative blood loss, implant costs, and SRS-24 scores.
RESULTS: After surgery, the average major curve correction was 76% in the screw group and 50% in the hook group (P < 0.001). At the 2-year follow-up, loss of the major curve correction was less in the screw group (5.4%) compared with the hook group (8.0%) (P = 0.35). Postoperative global coronal and sagittal balance was similar in both groups. An average of 0.8 levels from the distal end vertebra was saved using pedicle screws compared with hook constructs (P = 0.002). Postoperative 2-year proximal junctional change in the sagittal plane (angle between uppermost instrumented vertebra and two vertebral bodies above the uppermost-instrumented vertebra) was 9 degrees in the screw group and 6 degrees in the hook group (P = 0.19). Postoperative 2-year distal junctional change in the sagittal plane was similar in both groups. Operative time averaged 341 minutes in the screw group and 338 minutes in the hook group (P = 0.86), and intraoperative blood loss was similar in both groups (879 mL in screw group vs. 896 mL in hook group) (P = 0.12). Average implant cost in the hook group (11.8 fixation points; 5,816 U.S. dollars) was significantly lower than that of the screw group (17.1 fixation points; 11,508 U.S. dollars) (P < 0.001). Two years following surgery, the screw group demonstrated improved percent predicted pulmonary function values compared with that of the hook group (FVC, 80%--> 79% in screw group vs. 82%--> 74% in hook group, P = 0.0056; FEV-1, 73%--> 76% in screw group vs. 80%--> 79% in hook group, P = 0.017). Postoperative 2-year SRS-24 scores were similar in both groups (screw group [97] vs. hook group [101]) (P = 0.15). There were no neurologic or visceral complications related to hook or pedicle screw instrumentation.
CONCLUSION: Pedicle screw instrumentation, although more expensive, offers a significantly better major and minor curve correction without neurologic problems and improved pulmonary function values in the operative treatment of AIS and enables a slightly shorter fusion length than segmental hook instrumentation.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15371706     DOI: 10.1097/01.brs.0000138268.12324.1a

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


  107 in total

1.  A randomized double-blinded clinical trial to evaluate the safety and efficacy of a novel superelastic nickel-titanium spinal rod in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: 5-year follow-up.

Authors:  Jason Pui Yin Cheung; Dino Samartzis; Kelvin Yeung; Michael To; Keith Dip Kei Luk; Kenneth Man-Chee Cheung
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2017-08-04       Impact factor: 3.134

2.  Sagittal profile control in patients affected by neurological scoliosis using Universal Clamps: a 4-year follow-up study.

Authors:  Guido La Rosa; Giancarlo Giglio; Leonardo Oggiano
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2012-03-10       Impact factor: 3.134

3.  Thoracic pedicle screw insertion in Asian cadaveric specimen: does radiological pedicle profile affect outcome?

Authors:  Chris Yin Wei Chan; Mun Keong Kwan; Lim Beng Saw
Journal:  Surg Radiol Anat       Date:  2010-09-17       Impact factor: 1.246

4.  A comparison of feasibility and safety of percutaneous fluoroscopic guided thoracic pedicle screws between Europeans and Asians: is there any difference?

Authors:  Mun Keong Kwan; Chee Kidd Chiu; Chris Yin Wei Chan; Reza Zamani; Nils Hansen-Algenstaedt
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2015-07-30       Impact factor: 3.134

5.  Reversing the concept: correction of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis using the convex rod de-rotation maneuver.

Authors:  Yoram Anekstein; Yigal Mirovsky; Vitaly Arnabitsky; Yael Gelfer; Ira Zaltz; Yossi Smorgick
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2012-05-17       Impact factor: 3.134

6.  Pedicle screw instrumentation and spinal deformities: have we gone too far?

Authors:  John McCormick; Max Aebi; David Toby; Vincent Arlet
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2012-04-25       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 7.  [Multiplan correction of a 3D deformity. Options and relevance of optimizing the thoracic kyphosis in reconstructive scoliosis surgery].

Authors:  B Wiedenhöfer; C H Fürstenberg; K Schröder; M Akbar
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2011-08       Impact factor: 1.087

8.  [Modern scoliosis surgery under the conditions of the German DRG-system].

Authors:  A Richter; M Ahrens; M Quante; B Thomsen; M Köszegvàry; H Halm
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2009-02       Impact factor: 1.087

9.  [Evaluation of the sagittal profile in patients with thoracic adolescent idiopathic scoliosis Lenke type 1 following posterior correction].

Authors:  M Akbar; T Dreher; F Schwab; G Omlor; H Wang; T Bruckner; C Carstens; B Wiedenhöfer
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2013-03       Impact factor: 1.087

Review 10.  [Characteristics of neuromuscular scoliosis].

Authors:  M Putzier; C Groß; R K Zahn; M Pumberger; P Strube
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2016-06       Impact factor: 1.087

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.