| Literature DB >> 27558492 |
Yu-Cheng Yeh1,2, Chi-Chien Niu1,2,3, Lih-Huei Chen1,2,3, Wen-Jer Chen1,2,3, Po-Liang Lai4,5,6.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Spinous process has been routinely resected during posterior fusion of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis for fusion bed preparation and local autologous bone graft supplement. However, spinous process serves as an important structure in posterior ligament complex and was the anchorage of paraspinal muscle groups. With the development of pedicle screws instrumentation and the potential fusion ability in children, the need for resecting spinous process in this procedure could be further investigated. The purpose of this study was to compare the fusion rates, surgical outcomes and complications between harvesting and preserving the spinous process in posterior fusion of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis.Entities:
Keywords: Adolescent idiopathic scoliosis; Local autologous bone graft; Pedicle screw instrumentations; Posterior fusion; Pseudoarthrosis; Spinous process
Mesh:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27558492 PMCID: PMC4997704 DOI: 10.1186/s12891-016-1222-5
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Musculoskelet Disord ISSN: 1471-2474 Impact factor: 2.362
Fig. 1a Harvesting group: Resecting the spinous process (arrow) as additional local bone graft. Note: The most cephalad and caudal vertebra (arrow head) were spared to avoid jeopardizing the posterior complex of un-fused segments. b Preserving group: Preserving the spinous process, supraspinous ligament and interspinous ligament (arrow)
Patient demographics and peri-operative variables
| Group I (Harvesting) | Group II (Preserving) |
| |
|---|---|---|---|
| Patients | 61 (10 M & 51 F) | 43 (1 M & 42 F) | |
| Age (years) | 14.0 (11 ~ 19) | 13.8 (10 ~ 18) | 0.71 |
| Median f/u length (months) | 60 (24 ~ 128) | 73 (24 ~ 107) | |
| Level fused | 10.6 ± 1.7 | 10.0 ± 1.9 | 0.06 |
| Duration of surgery (minutes) | 216 ± 47 | 224 ± 50 | 0.40 |
| Implants inserted (numbers) | 13.3 ± 2.2 | 13.3 ± 2.0 | 0.97 |
| Blood loss (ml) | 983 ± 446 | 824 ± 361 | 0.048 |
| Peri-OP blood transfusion (units) | 6.0 ± 3.3 | 5.1 ± 3.0 | 0.13 |
| Hospitalization length (days) | 7.4 ± 1.0 | 6.8 ± 0.8 | 0.003 |
Data are presented as mean ± standard deviation (SD)
M male, F female, OP operative, f/u follow-up
*p value was calculated by unpaired two-sample t-test
Radiographic findings
| Group I (Harvesting) | Group II (Preserving) |
| |
|---|---|---|---|
| Structural curvea | 85 | 54 | |
| Pre-OP structural curve | 50.7° ± 9.5° | 51.3° ± 10.8° | 0.74 |
| Post-OP structural curve | 18.3° ± 6.4° | 17.2° ± 8.2° | 0.41 |
| Structural curve correction rate | 63.3 % ± 13.4 % | 65.2 % ± 18.5 % | 0.50 |
| Pre-OP thoracic kyphosis (T5-T12) | 20.9° ± 11.3° | 21.3° ± 11.6° | 0.80 |
| Post-OP thoracic kyphosis (T5-T12) | 24.8° ± 10.2° | 25.1° ± 10.4° | 0.73 |
| Pre-OP lumbar lordosis (L1-S1) | 54.0° ± 11.5° | 54.1° ± 11.7° | 0.89 |
| Post-OP lumbar lordosis (L1-S1) | 56.8° ± 12.2° | 56.2° ± 12.1° | 0.68 |
| Pre-OP major curvea | 53.5° ± 9.4° | 54.0° ± 8.7° | 0.82 |
| Major curve correction rate | 66.0 % ± 9.7 % | 70.4 % ± 12.9 % | 0.06 |
| Structural curve loss of correction | 1.8° | 2.7° | 0.25 |
Data are presented as mean ± standard deviation (SD)
OP operative
*p value was calculated by unpaired two-sample t-test
aStructural curve and major curve were defined by Lenke classification
Adverse results
| Group I (Harvesting) | Group II (Preserving) |
| |
|---|---|---|---|
| Pseudoarthrosis | 3/61 (5 %) | 2/43 (5 %) | 0.95 |
| Infection | 1 | 0 | |
| Prescribed pain medication | 16/61 (26 %) | 4/43 (9 %) | 0.03 |
*p value was calculated by chi-square test