Literature DB >> 22322370

Which Lenke 1A curves are at the greatest risk for adding-on... and why?

Robert H Cho1, Burt Yaszay, Carrie E Bartley, Tracey P Bastrom, Peter O Newton.   

Abstract

STUDY
DESIGN: Multicenter review of prospectively collected data.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the incidence of distal adding-on and associated risk factors in each of the 2 Lenke 1A curve patterns. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Previous work has demonstrated 2 distinct Lenke 1A curve patterns on the basis of the tilt of L4 (1A-L and 1A-R) that are different in form and treatment.
METHODS: A query of a prospective multicenter adolescent idiopathic scoliosis database identified 195 patients with Lenke 1A curves. Patients were grouped on the basis of the direction of the L4 vertebral tilt: 1A-L (left) and 1A-R (right). The incidences as well as clinical and radiographical risk factors for adding-on were identified for each group. Adding-on was defined as an increase in the Cobb angle of at least 5° and distalization of the end vertebra of the thoracic curve or a change in disc angulation of 5° or greater below the lowest instrumented vertebra from the first erect to 2-year postoperative radiographs.
RESULTS: Forty (21%) patients met the criteria for adding-on. The average increase in Cobb angle was 11.9° for those categorized as having adding-on compared with 3.8° in the non-adding-on group. Lenke 1A-R curves were 2.2 times more likely to experience adding-on than 1A-L curves. In the 1A-R curves, patients who added-on were fused at an average of 1.6 levels proximal to the neutral vertebra versus an average of 0.9 levels proximal to the neutral vertebra for the patients who did not add-on (P = 0.023). Patients who added-on were fused at an average of 2.5 levels above stable versus 2.1 levels above stable in those who did not (P = 0.06). Age and skeletal maturity were not identified as risk factors in the 1A-R curves. In 1A-L curves, younger (12.7 vs. 14.7 yr, P = 0.002) and less skeletally mature patients based on Risser grading (70% vs. 14% Risser 0, P = 0.004) were more likely to experience adding-on.
CONCLUSION: Understanding the difference between Lenke 1A-L and 1A-R curve types may be helpful in preventing the adding-on phenomena postoperatively. To prevent adding-on in 1A-R curves, we recommend fusing distally to 1 level above the neutral vertebra or 1 to 2 levels above the stable vertebra. In 1A-L curves, adding-on may simply be a need to balance some lumbar curve progression in a young, skeletally immature patient.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22322370     DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e31824bac7a

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


  17 in total

1.  CORR Insights®: Preventing Fusion Mass Shift Avoids Postoperative Distal Curve Adding-on in Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis.

Authors:  Kent A Reinker
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2017-03-01       Impact factor: 4.176

2.  Clinically orientated classification incorporating shoulder balance for the surgical treatment of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis.

Authors:  H B Elsebaie; Z Dannawi; F Altaf; A Zaidan; M Al Mukhtar; M J Shaw; A Gibson; H Noordeen
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2015-07-04       Impact factor: 3.134

3.  Preventing Fusion Mass Shift Avoids Postoperative Distal Curve Adding-on in Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis.

Authors:  Hideki Shigematsu; Jason Pui Yin Cheung; Mauro Bruzzone; Hiroaki Matsumori; Kin-Cheung Mak; Dino Samartzis; Keith Dip Kei Luk
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2017-01-03       Impact factor: 4.176

4.  Distal adding-on after surgery in Lenke 5C adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: clinical and radiological outcomes.

Authors:  Wenbin Hua; Zhiwei Liao; Wencan Ke; Shuai Li; Xiaobo Feng; Bingjin Wang; Kun Wang; Xinghuo Wu; Yukun Zhang; Yong Gao; Li Ling; Cao Yang
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2022-06-22       Impact factor: 2.562

5.  Characterizing the differences between the 2D and 3D measurements of spine in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis.

Authors:  Saba Pasha; Patrick J Cahill; John P Dormans; John M Flynn
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2016-05-04       Impact factor: 3.134

6.  Defining risk factors for adding-on in Lenke 1 and 2 AR curves.

Authors:  Brendon C Mitchell; David L Skaggs; Lawrence G Lenke; Tracey P Bastrom; Carrie E Bartley; Peter O Newton
Journal:  Spine Deform       Date:  2021-07-03

7.  Selective fusion in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: a radiographic evaluation of risk factors for imbalance.

Authors:  D Studer; A Awais; N Williams; G Antoniou; N Eardley-Harris; P Cundy
Journal:  J Child Orthop       Date:  2015-04-07       Impact factor: 1.548

8.  Application of 3D rapid prototyping technology in posterior corrective surgery for Lenke 1 adolescent idiopathic scoliosis patients.

Authors:  Mingyuan Yang; Chao Li; Yanming Li; Yingchuan Zhao; Xianzhao Wei; Guoyou Zhang; Jianping Fan; Haijian Ni; Ziqiang Chen; Yushu Bai; Ming Li
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2015-02       Impact factor: 1.889

9.  Spinal deformity progression after posterior segmental instrumentation and fusion for idiopathic scoliosis.

Authors:  Vidyadhar V Upasani; Daniel J Hedequist; M Timothy Hresko; Lawrence I Karlin; John B Emans; Michael P Glotzbecker
Journal:  J Child Orthop       Date:  2015-01-20       Impact factor: 1.548

10.  Postoperative shoulder imbalance in Lenke Type 1A adolescent idiopathic scoliosis and related factors.

Authors:  Morio Matsumoto; Kota Watanabe; Noriaki Kawakami; Taichi Tsuji; Koki Uno; Teppei Suzuki; Manabu Ito; Haruhisa Yanagida; Shohei Minami; Tsutomu Akazawa
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2014-11-05       Impact factor: 2.362

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.