| Literature DB >> 27872896 |
Ebrahim Ghayem Hassankhani1, Farzad Omidi-Kashani1, Shahram Moradkhani2, Golnaz Ghayem Hassankhani3, Mohammad Taghi Shakeri4.
Abstract
Background. In surgical treatment of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS), hybrid universal clamp system has been used by some authors. We aimed to compare the clinical and radiologic outcome of hybrid universal clamp with hybrid thoracic hook lumbar screw. Methods. A prospective study was performed on 56 consecutive patients with AIS, who had alternatively undergone a posterior spinal fusion and instrumentation with hybrid thoracic hook lumbar screw system (28 patients: group A) and hybrid universal clamp system (28 patients: group B) between June 2006 and January 2014 at Imam Reza University Hospital and had been followed up for more than two years. The comparison was according to radiographic changes, operative time, intraoperative blood loss, complications, and Scoliosis Research Society (SRS-22) outcome scores. Results. The preoperative mean curve Cobb angle was 58° ± 7° (42°-74°) in group A and 60° ± 9° (46°-75°) in group B. The mean final coronal curve correction was 60.4% and 75.5% in groups A and B, respectively (P = 0.001). Postoperative SRS outcome scores were also comparable. Conclusion. Universal clamp instrumentation had a significantly better curve correction and lower complication rate compared with hybrid thoracic hook lumbar screw. Both instrumentation methods had similar operative time, intraoperative blood loss, and postoperative SRS outcome scores.Entities:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27872896 PMCID: PMC5107211 DOI: 10.1155/2016/7639727
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Adv Med ISSN: 2314-758X
Figure 1(a) and (b) A 17-year-old girl with AIS, with 2-year brace treatment. (c) and (d) After correction, PSF and instrumentation by hybrid thoracic hook lumbar screw technique.
Figure 2(a) and (b) A 16-year-old girl with AIS without brace treatment. (c) and (d) After correction, PSF and instrumentation by hybrid UC technique.
Coronal preoperative, immediate, and final postoperative Cobb angle measurements and final correction in both groups.
| Coronal Cobb angle measurements | Group A | Group B | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mean preoperative | 58° (42–74) | 60° (46–75) | NS |
| Mean immediate postoperative | 24.5° (14–28) | 15° (12.5–19) |
|
| Mean final postoperative | 28.1° (15–34) | 17.4° (13–24) |
|
| Mean final curve correction | 60.4% | 75.5% |
|
Sagittal preoperative, immediate, and final postoperative Cobb angle measurements in both groups.
| Mean sagittal Cobb angle | Curve | Group A | Group B | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Preoperative | Thoracic | 35.2° (3–56) | 36.6° (0–68) | NS |
| Thoracolumbar | 13.8° (−8–22) | 14.3° (−11–24) | NS | |
| Lumbar | −43.6° (−75 to −21) | −42.5° (−68 to −18) | NS | |
|
| ||||
| Immediate postoperative | Thoracic | 26.6° (15–50) | 30.8° (10–58) | NS |
| Thoracolumbar | 2.9° (−11–3) | 2.1° (−13 to 15) | NS | |
| Lumbar | −42° (−70 to −10) | −40.6° (−61 to −20) | NS | |
|
| ||||
| Final postoperative | Thoracic | 28.7° (11–55) | 27.3° (12–54) | NS |
| Thoracolumbar | 5.2° (−14–5) | 4.8° (−10–15) | NS | |
| Lumbar | −42° (−73 to −15) | −41.3° (−65 to −18) | NS | |