Literature DB >> 19672635

Subjective evaluation of treatment outcomes of instrumentation with pedicle screws or hybrid constructs in Lenke Type 1 and 2 adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: what happens when judges are blinded to the instrumentation?

Vincent Arlet1, Jean Albert Ouellet, Jeffrey Shilt, Francis H Shen, Kirkham Wood, Donald Chan, John Hicks, Ernesto Bersusky, Vasantha Reddi.   

Abstract

Superiority of pedicle screws over hybrid/hook instrumentation or vice versa in the treatment of Lenke Type 1 and 2 adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) remains unresolved for moderate curves. Our objective was therefore to compare the assessment of pedicle screw and hybrid/hooks instrumentation with special attention to cosmesis and uninstrumented spine using novel assessment methods. We carried out a retrospective study of radiographs and clinical photos of 40 cases of thoracic AIS between 40 degrees and 70 degrees of Cobb angle Lenke Type 1 and 2, treated with either pedicle screws or hybrid/hooks. The cases were subjectively assessed by four spine surgeons (SRS Travelling Fellows) for radiographic and operative cosmetic result, shoulder balance, trunk shift, rib hump, and waist asymmetry. Instrumentation in the radiographs was obscured with only the non-instrumented part visible, and the surgeons were asked to guess the instrumentation being used. Eighty photographs of patients before and after surgery were assessed for cosmesis by ten non-medical judges for overall cosmetic score, shoulder balance, waist asymmetry, and shoulder blade prominence. Objective assessment of radiographs and clinical photos was performed for Cobb angle of instrumented and non-instrumented spine, global coronal and sagittal balance, number of unfused vertebrae, disc angulation, tilt of last instrumented vertebra, shoulder balance, waist asymmetry, rib prominence, and percent correction. SRS-24 questionnaire was used to measure health-related quality of life in patients. Subjective assessments by surgeons and non-medical judges showed no significant difference by instrumentation (P > or = 0.05) for all variables. Out of the 160 guesses by surgeons of the cases with instrumentation blocked in the radiographs, they were unable to guess the instrumentation in 92% of the cases. Objective assessment of all variables and SRS-24 scores of all five domains showed no significant difference by instrumentation (P > or = 0.05). In this first-ever conducted study in a blinded-fashion, we conclude that there is no significant difference between the pedicle screw and hybrid/hooks instrumentations used to treat AIS for Lenke Type 1 and 2 curves for moderate curves between 40 degrees and 70 degrees .

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19672635      PMCID: PMC2899433          DOI: 10.1007/s00586-009-1127-1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Spine J        ISSN: 0940-6719            Impact factor:   3.134


  29 in total

1.  Accuracy and efficacy of thoracic pedicle screws in curves more than 90 degrees.

Authors:  Timothy R Kuklo; Lawrence G Lenke; Michael F O'Brien; Ronald A Lehman; David W Polly; Teresa M Schroeder
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2005-01-15       Impact factor: 3.468

2.  Coronal and sagittal plane correction in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: a comparison between all pedicle screw versus hybrid thoracic hook lumbar screw constructs.

Authors:  Jason E Lowenstein; Hiroko Matsumoto; Michael G Vitale; Mark Weidenbaum; Jaime A Gomez; Francis Young-In Lee; Joshua E Hyman; David P Roye
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2007-02-15       Impact factor: 3.468

3.  Comparison of Cotrel-Dubousset pedicle screws and hooks in the treatment of idiopathic scoliosis.

Authors:  S I Suk; C K Lee; H J Min; K H Cho; J H Oh
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  1994       Impact factor: 3.075

4.  The use of pedicle screw fixation to improve correction in the lumbar spine of patients with idiopathic scoliosis. Is it warranted?

Authors:  C L Hamill; L G Lenke; K H Bridwell; M P Chapman; K Blanke; C Baldus
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1996-05-15       Impact factor: 3.468

5.  Surgeon reliability in rating physical deformity in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis.

Authors:  Sandra Donaldson; Douglas Hedden; Derek Stephens; Benjamin Alman; Andrew Howard; Unni Narayanan; James G Wright
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2007-02-01       Impact factor: 3.468

6.  Comparison of anterior and posterior instrumentation for correction of adolescent thoracic idiopathic scoliosis.

Authors:  R R Betz; J Harms; D H Clements; L G Lenke; T G Lowe; H L Shufflebarger; D Jeszenszky; B Beele
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1999-02-01       Impact factor: 3.468

7.  Radiographic outcomes of anterior spinal fusion versus posterior spinal fusion with thoracic pedicle screws for treatment of Lenke Type I adolescent idiopathic scoliosis curves.

Authors:  Benjamin K Potter; Timothy R Kuklo; Lawrence G Lenke
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2005-08-15       Impact factor: 3.468

8.  Posterior fusion only for thoracic adolescent idiopathic scoliosis of more than 80 degrees: pedicle screws versus hybrid instrumentation.

Authors:  Mario Di Silvestre; Georgios Bakaloudis; Francesco Lolli; Francesco Vommaro; Konstantinos Martikos; Patrizio Parisini
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2008-08-12       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 9.  Evidence-based medicine analysis of all pedicle screw constructs in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis.

Authors:  Kishore Mulpuri; Angeliki Perdios; Christopher W Reilly
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2007-09-01       Impact factor: 3.468

10.  Adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: Lenke type I-VI case studies.

Authors:  Vincent Arlet; Vasantha Reddi
Journal:  Neurosurg Clin N Am       Date:  2007-04       Impact factor: 2.509

View more
  8 in total

1.  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

2.  Right adolescent idiopathic thoracic curve (Lenke 1 A and B): does cost of instrumentation and implant density improve radiographic and cosmetic parameters?

Authors:  Scott Yang; Sean M Jones-Quaidoo; Matthew Eager; Justin W Griffin; Vasantha Reddi; Wendy Novicoff; Jeffrey Shilt; Ernesto Bersusky; Helton Defino; Jean Ouellet; Vincent Arlet
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2011-04-26       Impact factor: 3.134

3.  Skipped versus consecutive pedicle screw constructs for correction of Lenke 1 curves.

Authors:  Simon Morr; Alexandra Carrer; Luis Ignacio Alvarez-García de Quesada; Juan Carlos Rodriguez-Olaverri
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2015-01-20       Impact factor: 3.134

4.  The mechanisms underlying the variety of preoperative directionalities of shoulder tilting in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis patients with double thoracic curve.

Authors:  Jun Jiang; Bang-Ping Qian; Yong Qiu; Bin Wang; Yang Yu; Ze-Zhang Zhu
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2017-06-10       Impact factor: 3.134

5.  Full fusion of proximal thoracic curve helps to prevent postoperative cervical tilt in Lenke type 2 adolescent idiopathic scoliosis patients with right-elevated shoulder.

Authors:  Jun Jiang; Bang-Ping Qian; Yong Qiu; Bin Wang; Yang Yu; Ze-Zhang Zhu
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2017-08-23       Impact factor: 2.362

6.  All Pedicle Screw versus Hybrid Hook-Screw Instrumentation in the Treatment of Thoracic Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis (AIS): A Prospective Comparative Cohort Study.

Authors:  Athanasios I Tsirikos; Tristan E McMillan
Journal:  Healthcare (Basel)       Date:  2022-08-03

7.  Comparative analysis of pedicle screw versus hybrid instrumentation in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis surgery.

Authors:  Sohail Rafi; Naseem Munshi; Asad Abbas; Rabia Hassan Shaikh; Imtiaz Hashmi
Journal:  J Neurosci Rural Pract       Date:  2016 Oct-Dec

8.  Comparative Analysis of Combined (First Anterior, Then Posterior) Versus Only Posterior Approach for Treating Severe Scoliosis: A Mean Follow Up of 8.5 Years.

Authors:  Nikša Hero; Rok Vengust; Matevž Topolovec
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2017-06-01       Impact factor: 3.241

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.