Literature DB >> 24785479

Limitations and ceiling effects with circumferential minimally invasive correction techniques for adult scoliosis: analysis of radiological outcomes over a 7-year experience.

Neel Anand1, Eli M Baron, Babak Khandehroo.   

Abstract

OBJECT: Minimally invasive correction of adult scoliosis is a surgical method increasing in popularity. Limited data exist, however, as to how effective these methodologies are in achieving coronal plane and sagittal plane correction in addition to improving spinopelvic parameters. This study serves to quantify how much correction is possible with present circumferential minimally invasive surgical (cMIS) methods.
METHODS: Ninety patients were selected from a database of 187 patients who underwent cMIS scoliosis correction. All patients had a Cobb angle greater than 15°, 3 or more levels fused, and availability of preoperative and postoperative 36-inch standing radiographs. The mean duration of follow-up was 37 months. Preoperative and postoperative Cobb angle, sagittal vertical axis (SVA), coronal balance, lumbar lordosis (LL), and pelvic incidence (PI) were measured. Scatter plots were performed comparing the pre- and postoperative radiological parameters to calculate ceiling effects for SVA correction, Cobb angle correction, and PI-LL mismatch correction.
RESULTS: The mean preoperative SVA value was 60 mm (range 11.5-151 mm); the mean postoperative value was 31 mm (range 0-84 mm). The maximum SVA correction achieved with cMIS techniques in any of the cases was 89 mm. In terms of coronal Cobb angle, a mean correction of 61% was noted, with a mean preoperative value of 35.8° (range 15°-74.7°) and a mean postoperative value of 13.9° (range 0°-32.5°). A ceiling effect for Cobb angle correction was noted at 42°. The ability to correct the PI-LL mismatch to 10° was limited to cases in which the preoperative PI-LL mismatch was 38° or less.
CONCLUSIONS: Circumferential MIS techniques as currently used for the treatment of adult scoliosis have limitations in terms of their ability to achieve SVA correction and lumbar lordosis. When the preoperative SVA is greater than 100 mm and a substantial amount of lumbar lordosis is needed, as determined by spinopelvic parameter calculations, surgeons should consider osteotomies or other techniques that may achieve more lordosis.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24785479     DOI: 10.3171/2014.3.FOCUS13585

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Neurosurg Focus        ISSN: 1092-0684            Impact factor:   4.047


  10 in total

1.  Complications and neurological deficits following minimally invasive anterior column release for adult spinal deformity: a retrospective study.

Authors:  Gisela Murray; Joshua Beckman; Konrad Bach; Donald A Smith; Elias Dakwar; Juan S Uribe
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2015-04-08       Impact factor: 3.134

2.  Complications in adult spine deformity surgery: a systematic review of the recent literature with reporting of aggregated incidences.

Authors:  Andrea Zanirato; Marco Damilano; Matteo Formica; Andrea Piazzolla; Alessio Lovi; Jorge Hugo Villafañe; Pedro Berjano
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2018-03-01       Impact factor: 3.134

3.  The Influence of Lordotic cages on creating Sagittal Balance in the CMIS treatment of Adult Spinal Deformity.

Authors:  Neel Anand; Ryan B Cohen; Jason Cohen; Babak Kahndehroo; Sheila Kahwaty; Eli Baron
Journal:  Int J Spine Surg       Date:  2017-06-30

4.  Biomechanical comparison of multilevel lateral interbody fusion with and without supplementary instrumentation: a three-dimensional finite element study.

Authors:  Xilin Liu; Jun Ma; Paul Park; Xiaodong Huang; Ning Xie; Xiaojian Ye
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2017-02-02       Impact factor: 2.362

Review 5.  Recent Advances in Technique and Clinical Outcomes of Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery in Adult Scoliosis.

Authors:  Gang Liu; Sen Liu; Yu-Zhi Zuo; Qi-Yi Li; Zhi-Hong Wu; Nan Wu; Ke-Yi Yu; Gui-Xing Qiu
Journal:  Chin Med J (Engl)       Date:  2017-11-05       Impact factor: 2.628

6.  The Radiologic and Clinical Outcomes of Oblique Lateral Interbody Fusion for Correction of Adult Degenerative Lumbar Deformity.

Authors:  Ravish Shammi Patel; Seung Woo Suh; Seong Hyun Kang; Ki-Youl Nam; Shiblee Sabir Siddiqui; Dong-Gune Chang; Jae Hyuk Yang
Journal:  Indian J Orthop       Date:  2019 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 1.251

7.  Short-segment minimally disruptive anterior column release for focal sagittal deformity correction of the thoracolumbar spine.

Authors:  Antoine G Tohmeh; Sahir S Jabbouri; Alexandre Vesselle; Kelli M Howell
Journal:  N Am Spine Soc J       Date:  2021-05-09

8.  Comparison of Hybrid Posterior Fixation and Conventional Open Posterior Fixation Combined with Multilevel Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Adult Spinal Deformity.

Authors:  Hirooki Endo; Hideki Murakami; Daisuke Yamabe; Yusuke Chiba; Ryosuke Oikawa; Hirotaka Yan; Minoru Doita
Journal:  J Clin Med       Date:  2022-02-16       Impact factor: 4.241

9.  Is There a Patient Profile That Characterizes a Patient With Adult Spinal Deformity as a Candidate for Minimally Invasive Surgery?

Authors:  Robert K Eastlack; Gregory M Mundis; Michael Wang; Praveen V Mummaneni; Juan Uribe; David Okonkwo; Behrooz A Akbarnia; Neel Anand; Adam Kanter; Paul Park; Virginie Lafage; Christopher Shaffrey; Richard Fessler; Vedat Deviren
Journal:  Global Spine J       Date:  2017-07-28

10.  Classifying Complications: Assessing Adult Spinal Deformity 2-Year Surgical Outcomes.

Authors:  Eric O Klineberg; Peter G Passias; Gregory W Poorman; Cyrus M Jalai; Abiola Atanda; Nancy Worley; Samantha Horn; Daniel M Sciubba; D Kojo Hamilton; Douglas C Burton; Munish Chandra Gupta; Justin S Smith; Alexandra Soroceanu; Robert A Hart; Brian Neuman; Christopher P Ames; Frank J Schwab; Virginie Lafage
Journal:  Global Spine J       Date:  2020-07-30
  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.