Literature DB >> 25103952

Adult degenerative scoliosis: comparison of patient-rated outcome after three different surgical treatments.

F S Kleinstueck1, T F Fekete1, D Jeszenszky1, D Haschtmann1, A F Mannion2.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Few studies have examined the effectiveness of surgical treatment for adult degenerative scoliosis (ADS) using validated patient-orientated outcome instruments. This study reports patient outcomes in a large, consecutive series of patients being treated for ADS by simple decompression (D), short fusion (SF), or long fusion (LF).
METHODS: Our local spine surgery database (part of the Eurospine Spine Tango Registry) was used to acquire the data from patients with ADS undergoing D, SF or LF. Preoperatively and at 12 and 24 months follow-up (FU), patients completed the multidimensional Core Outcome Measures Index (COMI; 0-10); at FU, satisfaction and global outcome were rated on a five-point Likert scale and dichotomised as "good" and "poor", and patient-rated complications were recorded.
RESULTS: 173 patients took part (81 D, 53 SF, 39 LF). Compared with the two fusion groups, the D group was significantly older, had more comorbidity, and had more leg pain than back pain (each p < 0.05). There were significant differences among the groups for operation duration, blood loss and general complications (each p < 0.05), in each case with the LF group showing the greatest values and the D group the lowest values. However, patient-rated complications were not significantly different between the groups (p > 0.89). Further surgery within the 2-year follow-up was required in 7 % of the D group, 15 % in SF and 28 % in LF. All groups benefited significantly from surgery with no significant differences (p > 0.05) between them: improvement in COMI after 24 months was 2.9 ± 2.8 points for D, 3.1 ± 3.3 points for SF and 3.2 ± 3.1 points for LF; a "good global outcome" was recorded for 69, 74 and 76 % patients, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: Despite the complexity of the disease, patient-orientated outcomes after surgery for ADS were similar to those previously reported using the same outcome instruments in patients with lumbar stenosis and degenerative spondylolisthesis. The use of D, SF and LF for ADS yielded similarly good results from the patient's perspective. This most likely reflects careful and appropriate patient selection. Further analyses are warranted to identify baseline variables predicting the 26-31 % cases in each group with a poor outcome.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Adult degenerative scoliosis; Decompression; Fusion; Patient-rated outcomes

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25103952     DOI: 10.1007/s00586-014-3484-7

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


  26 in total

1.  Scoliosis Research Society-Schwab adult spinal deformity classification: a validation study.

Authors:  Frank Schwab; Benjamin Ungar; Benjamin Blondel; Jacob Buchowski; Jeffrey Coe; Donald Deinlein; Christopher DeWald; Hossein Mehdian; Christopher Shaffrey; Clifford Tribus; Virginie Lafage
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2012-05-20       Impact factor: 3.468

2.  Outcome assessment in low back pain: how low can you go?

Authors:  Anne F Mannion; Achim Elfering; Ralph Staerkle; Astrid Junge; Dieter Grob; Norbert K Semmer; Nicola Jacobshagen; Jiri Dvorak; Norbert Boos
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2005-06-04       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 3.  The adult scoliosis.

Authors:  Max Aebi
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2005-11-18       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 4.  How to Tango: a manual for implementing Spine Tango.

Authors:  T Zweig; A F Mannion; D Grob; M Melloh; E Munting; A Tuschel; M Aebi; C Röder
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2009-06-28       Impact factor: 3.134

5.  Diagnostic findings in painful adult scoliosis.

Authors:  S A Grubb; H J Lipscomb
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1992-05       Impact factor: 3.468

6.  The quality of spine surgery from the patient's perspective: part 2. Minimal clinically important difference for improvement and deterioration as measured with the Core Outcome Measures Index.

Authors:  A F Mannion; F Porchet; F S Kleinstück; F Lattig; D Jeszenszky; V Bartanusz; J Dvorak; D Grob
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2009-03-19       Impact factor: 3.134

7.  The influence of preoperative back pain on the outcome of lumbar decompression surgery.

Authors:  Frank S Kleinstück; Dieter Grob; Friederike Lattig; Viktor Bartanusz; Francois Porchet; Dezsö Jeszenszky; David O'Riordan; Anne F Mannion
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2009-05-15       Impact factor: 3.468

8.  The quality of spine surgery from the patient's perspective. Part 1: the Core Outcome Measures Index in clinical practice.

Authors:  Anne F Mannion; F Porchet; F S Kleinstück; F Lattig; D Jeszenszky; V Bartanusz; J Dvorak; D Grob
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2009-03-25       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 9.  Current classification systems for adult degenerative scoliosis.

Authors:  C Faldini; A Di Martino; M De Fine; M T Miscione; C Calamelli; A Mazzotti; F Perna
Journal:  Musculoskelet Surg       Date:  2013-04-04

10.  Do 1-year outcomes predict 2-year outcomes for adult deformity surgery?

Authors:  Steven D Glassman; Frank Schwab; Keith H Bridwell; Christopher Shaffrey; William Horton; Serena Hu
Journal:  Spine J       Date:  2008-09-06       Impact factor: 4.166

View more
  13 in total

1.  Outcome of surgery for degenerative lumbar scoliosis: an observational study using the Swedish Spine register.

Authors:  Tian Cheng; Paul Gerdhem
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2017-08-05       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 2.  Measuring outcomes in adult spinal deformity surgery: a systematic review to identify current strengths, weaknesses and gaps in patient-reported outcome measures.

Authors:  Sayf S A Faraj; Miranda L van Hooff; Roderick M Holewijn; David W Polly; Tsjitske M Haanstra; Marinus de Kleuver
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2017-05-22       Impact factor: 3.134

3.  Curve progression in de novo degenerative lumbar scoliosis combined with degenerative segment disease after short-segment fusion.

Authors:  Yongqiang Wang; Ang Gao; Enhamujiang Hudabardiy; Miao Yu
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2019-11-06       Impact factor: 3.134

4.  Surgical training in spine surgery: safety and patient-rated outcome.

Authors:  Guy Waisbrod; Anne F Mannion; Támas F Fekete; Frank Kleinstueck; Deszö Jeszenszky; Daniel Haschtmann
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2019-01-29       Impact factor: 3.134

5.  Long vs. short fusions for adult lumbar degenerative scoliosis: does balance matters?

Authors:  Cesare Faldini; Alberto Di Martino; Raffaele Borghi; Fabrizio Perna; Angelo Toscano; Francesco Traina
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2015-10-06       Impact factor: 3.134

6.  Comparison of long fusion terminating at L5 versus the sacrum in treating adult spinal deformity: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  Fei Jia; Guodong Wang; Xiaoyang Liu; Tao Li; Jianmin Sun
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2019-10-17       Impact factor: 3.134

7.  Predictors of Deterioration in Sagittal Balance Following Long Fusion Arthrodesis to L5 in Patients with Adult Scoliosis.

Authors:  Xianda Gao; Linfeng Wang; Changzhi Yan; Yanlong Gao; Yong Shen
Journal:  Med Sci Monit       Date:  2018-02-14

8.  Radiographic Parameters in Adult Degenerative Scoliosis and Different Parameters Between Sagittal Balanced and Imbalanced ADS Patients.

Authors:  Changwei Yang; Mingyuan Yang; Yuanyuan Chen; Xianzhao Wei; Haijian Ni; Ziqiang Chen; Jingfeng Li; Yushu Bai; Xiaodong Zhu; Ming Li
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2015-07       Impact factor: 1.817

9.  Comparative Three-Dimensional Finite Element Analysis of 4 Kinds of Pedicle Screw Schemes for Treatment of Adult Degenerative Scoliosis.

Authors:  Yang Zhou; Daqi Xin; Zhuoting Lei; Yuan Zuo; Yan Zhao
Journal:  Med Sci Monit       Date:  2020-06-15

10.  A hybrid therapeutic approach for decreasing postoperative complications in patients with adult lumbar degenerative scoliosis.

Authors:  Yongfei Zhao; Yan Liang; Tianhao Wang; Zheng Wang; Ning Lu
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2020-07-24       Impact factor: 1.817

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.