| Literature DB >> 27413564 |
George I Mataliotakis1, Athanasios I Tsirikos1, Karen Pearson1, Don S Urquhart1, Carolyn Smith1, Andrew Fall1.
Abstract
Spinal deformity in patients with cystic fibrosis (CF) is usually mild requiring no treatment. These patients are rarely considered as surgical candidates for scoliosis correction, as the pulmonary condition and other comorbidities increase the risk of general anaesthesia and recovery. This paper reviews all the literature up to date with regard to scoliosis in patients with CF and reports this unique case of a 14-year-old Caucasian girl with progressive scoliosis, who was treated surgically at the age of 17. She underwent a posterior spinal fusion T2-L3 with the use of unilateral segmental instrumentation. Preoperative workup included respiratory, cardiac, anaesthetic, endocrine, and dietician reviews, as well as bone density optimisation with zoledronic acid and prophylactic antibiotics. Surgical time was 150 minutes and intraoperative blood loss was 47% of total blood volume. Postoperative intensive care included noninvasive ventilation, antibiotic cover, pain management, chest physiotherapy, pancreatic enzyme supplementation, and nutritional support. She was discharged on day 9. At follow-up she had a good cosmetic outcome, no complaints of her back, and stable respiratory function. Multidisciplinary perioperative care and meticulous surgical technique may reduce the associated risks of major surgery in CF patients, while achieving adequate deformity correction and a good functional outcome.Entities:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27413564 PMCID: PMC4930825 DOI: 10.1155/2016/7186258
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Case Rep Orthop ISSN: 2090-6757
Figure 1Preoperative posterior-anterior (a) and lateral (b) radiographs of the spine show a left upper and right low thoracic scoliosis measuring 36 and 65°, respectively. Posterior spinal fusion with the use of a right hook/screw and rod construct has achieved excellent correction of the curves to 12 and 22° and a satisfactory global coronal and sagittal balance for the spine (c, d).
Previous studies presenting scoliosis data in patients with CF [3–8].
| Age groups | Mean age at diagnosis (range) | Number of patients | Male : female ratio | Scoliosis patients | Male : female ratio | Scoliosis angle (range) | Number of progressive curves/number of patients with scoliosis (percent, %) | Prevalence (%) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Erkkila et al. [ | Infantile (0–4) | NR | 58 | NR | 0 | NR | — | NR | 26( |
| 4 to 16 | NR | 128 | NR | 7 (6%) | NR | NR (10–28) | NR | ||
| >19 (adult) | NR | 17 | NR | 3 (18%) | NR | NR (16–26) | NR | 12( | |
|
| |||||||||
| Paling and Spasovsky-Chernick [ | Infantile (0–4) | NR | 32 | NR | 0 | 7 : 9 | N/A | 0 | 0 |
| 4 to 16 | 15 (8–22) | 151 | 96 : 55 | 15 (9.9%) | 8 : 7 | 17 (10–31) | NR | 9.93 | |
| Adult (>16) | 25 (15–31) | NR | |||||||
|
| |||||||||
| Kumar et al. [ | 0 to 4 | 2 (1–3) | 42 | 1.8 : 1 | 5 (11.91%) | 4 : 1 | 15 (10–16) | 0 | 11.90 |
| 4 to 16 | 9 (5–15) | 90 | 1 : 1.6 | 14 (15.56%) | 2 : 5 | 12 (11–25) | 4/14 (28.57) | 15.56 | |
| Adult (16–43) | 27 (17–43) | 184 | 1.1 : 1 | 18 (9.78%) | 2 : 5 | 15 (10–30) | 2/18 (11.11) | 9.78 | |
|
| |||||||||
| Fainardi et al. [ | 0 to adult | 10.9 (1.1–18) | 319 | 1 : 1.1 | 7 (2.19%) | 2 : 5 | <20 (up to 37) | 1/7 (14.29) | 2.19 |
|
| |||||||||
| Fainardi and Bush [ | 10 to adult | (10–18) | 173 | NR | 7 (4.05%) | NR | NR | NR | 4.05 |
|
| |||||||||
| Hathorn et al. [ | 10 to adult | 18 (10–18+) | 143 | NR | 16 (11.19%) | NR | 14 (10–38) | NR | 11 |
(Scoliosis and kyphosis in all age groups; (prevalence of scoliosis in ages from 15 to adult; N/A: not applicable; NR: not reported.
Risks of scoliosis surgery in patients with CF and perioperative management.
| Perioperative risks | Action | |
|---|---|---|
| Cystic fibrosis | Poor pulmonary reserve/restrictive lung disease | (1) Preoperative chest physiotherapy and increase in exercise |
| (2) Noninvasive ventilation, chest physiotherapy, early mobilisation postoperatively | ||
| Recurrent infections | (1) Perioperative antibiotics | |
| Poor nutrition | (1) Emphasis on adequate oral diet | |
| (2) Nutritional supplements | ||
| Poor bone quality | (1) Bisphosphonate treatment | |
|
| ||
| Major surgical insult | Increased intraoperative blood loss | (1) Hypotensive anaesthesia |
| (2) Local haemostats used | ||
| (3) Meticulous, sequential spinal exposure | ||
| (4) Use of less implants | ||
| (5) Use of cell saver | ||
| (6) Use of allograft (no need for harvesting autologous bone from other sites) | ||
| Reducing surgical time | (1) Use of single rod construct | |
| Pain effect on | (1) Limited use of IV opioids | |
| (i) chest, | (2) Aggressive chest physiotherapy | |
| (ii) mobilisation, | (3) Early postoperative mobilisation | |
| (iii) gastrointestinal system | (4) Supportive GI medication (including antiemetics and laxatives) | |
|
| ||
| Scoliosis correction | Neurological | (1) Use of a single rod construct (less implant density) |
| Infection | (1) Use of a single rod construct | |
| (2) Prophylactic antibiotics | ||
| Respiratory compromise | (1) Thoracoplasty not performed | |
| Nonunion | (1) Extensive bone grafting | |
| (2) Postoperative support with spinal jacket | ||
| Superior mesenteric artery syndrome | (1) Early instigation of oral diet | |
| (2) Nutritional supplements before and after surgery | ||
| (3) Early postoperative mobilisation | ||