Literature DB >> 26656044

Selecting the Last "Substantially" Touching Vertebra as Lowest Instrumented Vertebra in Lenke Type 1A Curve: Radiographic Outcomes With a Minimum of 2-year Follow-Up.

Xiaodong Qin1, Weixiang Sun, Leilei Xu, Zhen Liu, Yong Qiu, Zezhang Zhu.   

Abstract

STUDY
DESIGN: Retrospective study.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the long-term outcomes of correction surgery for Lenke 1A scoliosis patients among those with non-Substantially Touched Vertebra (nSTV), nSTV+1, or STV selected as lowest instrumented vertebra (LIV). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Previous studies have documented good outcomes when last touching vertebra (LTV) was selected as LIV; however, it is sometimes confusing to determine the proper LTV when central sacral vertical line (CSVL) slightly touches the vertebra.
METHODS: A total of 104 patients were included in the study with a minimum of 2-year follow-up after selective posterior thoracic instrumentation. STV was defined as the LTV where CSVL was between the pedicles or touching the pedicle. nSTV was defined as the LTV where CSVL was touching the corner of the vertebra lateral to the pedicle border. Patients with nSTV, nSTV+1, or STV selected as LIV were assigned to three groups with clinical outcomes compared among them. Factors associated with the incidence of adding-on were analyzed.
RESULTS: Distal adding-on was observed in 23 patients (22.1%). The incidence of distal adding-on was significantly higher in nSTV group than STV group or nSTV+1 group. Several risk factors significantly associated with adding-on were identified, including the distance between LIV and STV/nSTV+1, preoperative proximal thoracic curve and sagittal vertical axis, postoperative lumbar lordosis, apical translation, trunk shift, and radiographical shoulder height. Logistic regression analysis showed that the distance between LIV and STV/nSTV+1 (LIV-STV <0 or LIV-(nSTV+1) <0) was the only independent factor associated with the incidence of adding-on (odds ratio = 27.1, 95% confidence interval = 2.3-311.2, P = 0.002).
CONCLUSION: Differentiating STV from nSTV properly can facilitate the determination of optimal LIV and decrease the incidence of distal adding-on. Selecting STV or nSTV+1 as LIV could yield a promising outcome for Lenke 1A scoliosis patients undergoing selective posterior thoracic fusion. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 26656044     DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000001374

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


  5 in total

1.  Optimizing the fusion level for lenke 5C adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: is the S-line a validated and reproducible tool to predict coronal decompensation?

Authors:  Tianyuan Zhang; Shibin Shu; Wenting Jing; Qi Gu; Zezhang Zhu; Zhen Liu; Yong Qiu; Xu Sun; Bin Wang; Hongda Bao
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2021-03-04       Impact factor: 3.134

2.  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

3.  Natural History of Postoperative Adding-On in Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis: What Are the Risk Factors for Progressive Adding-On?

Authors:  Xiaodong Qin; Chao Xia; Leilei Xu; Fei Sheng; Huang Yan; Yong Qiu; Zezhang Zhu
Journal:  Biomed Res Int       Date:  2018-03-29       Impact factor: 3.411

4.  Choosing the Distal Fusion Levels in Lenke Type 1 Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis: How Do the Existing Classifications and Recommendations Guide Us?

Authors:  Bhavuk Garg; Nishank Mehta; Rudra Narayan Mukherjee
Journal:  Global Spine J       Date:  2020-03-03

5.  Data-driven Classification of the 3D Spinal Curve in Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis with an Applications in Surgical Outcome Prediction.

Authors:  Saba Pasha; John Flynn
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2018-11-02       Impact factor: 4.379

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.