Scott J Luhmann1, June C Smith2, Ann McClung3, Frances L McCullough4, Richard E McCarthy4, George H Thompson5. 1. St Louis Shriners Hospital, 4400 Clayton Ave, St Louis, MO 63110, USA; St Louis Childrens Hospital, One Childrens Place, St Louis, MO 63110, USA. Electronic address: luhmanns@wustl.edu. 2. Wash U Ortho Surgery, 660 S. Euclid Ave, Campus Box 8233, St Louis, MO 63110, USA. 3. Growing Spine Study Group, Growing Spine Foundation, 555 East Wells St., Suite 1100, Milwaukee, WI 53202, USA. 4. Akansas Childrens Hospital, 1 Childrens Way, Little Rock, AR 72202, USA. 5. Rainbow Babies & Childrens Hospital, 11100 Euclid Ave, Cleveland, OH 44106, USA.
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective review of a multicenter database. OBJECTIVES: To compare the radiographic outcomes of patients who had undergone the Shilla Growth Guidance System (SGGS) and traditional growing rod (GR) treatment for management of early-onset scoliosis (EOS) through definitive treatment. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The efficacy of surgical treatment of EOS can only be determined after definitive treatment has been completed. We wanted to review our experience with the SGGS and GR for management of EOS through definitive treatment. METHODS: Patients who had surgical treatment with SGGS or GR and had undergone definitive treatment were included. The patients were matched by age, preoperative curve magnitude, and diagnosis. The study population consisted of 36 patients (18 in each group) whose mean age at initial surgery was as follows: SGGS, 7.9 years; and GR, 7.7 years (not significant [NS]). Length of follow-up after initial surgery was 6.1 years for SGGS and 7.4 years for GR (NS). Definitive treatment was posterior spinal fusion (15 SGGS, 17 GR), implant removal (3 SGGS), or completion of lengthenings (1 GR). RESULTS: The preoperative curve was 61 degrees for SGGS and 65 degrees for GR (NS). After index surgery, the major curve decreased to 24 degrees (-37 degrees) for SGGS and 38 (-27 degrees) for GR (p < .05). At last follow-up, the major curve was 34 degrees (44%) for SGGS and 36 degrees (45%) for GR (NS). The initial T1-T12 length for SGGS was 188 mm and for GR, 181 mm; at last follow-up, SGGS was 234 mm (46 mm increase) and GR was 233 mm (52 mm increase) (NS). CONCLUSION: Our analysis shows the final radiographic outcomes (and changes) and complications (implant-related and infection) between the SGGS and GR groups were not statistically different. The main difference between the two groups was the threefold difference in overall surgeries.
STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective review of a multicenter database. OBJECTIVES: To compare the radiographic outcomes of patients who had undergone the Shilla Growth Guidance System (SGGS) and traditional growing rod (GR) treatment for management of early-onset scoliosis (EOS) through definitive treatment. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The efficacy of surgical treatment of EOS can only be determined after definitive treatment has been completed. We wanted to review our experience with the SGGS and GR for management of EOS through definitive treatment. METHODS:Patients who had surgical treatment with SGGS or GR and had undergone definitive treatment were included. The patients were matched by age, preoperative curve magnitude, and diagnosis. The study population consisted of 36 patients (18 in each group) whose mean age at initial surgery was as follows: SGGS, 7.9 years; and GR, 7.7 years (not significant [NS]). Length of follow-up after initial surgery was 6.1 years for SGGS and 7.4 years for GR (NS). Definitive treatment was posterior spinal fusion (15 SGGS, 17 GR), implant removal (3 SGGS), or completion of lengthenings (1 GR). RESULTS: The preoperative curve was 61 degrees for SGGS and 65 degrees for GR (NS). After index surgery, the major curve decreased to 24 degrees (-37 degrees) for SGGS and 38 (-27 degrees) for GR (p < .05). At last follow-up, the major curve was 34 degrees (44%) for SGGS and 36 degrees (45%) for GR (NS). The initial T1-T12 length for SGGS was 188 mm and for GR, 181 mm; at last follow-up, SGGS was 234 mm (46 mm increase) and GR was 233 mm (52 mm increase) (NS). CONCLUSION: Our analysis shows the final radiographic outcomes (and changes) and complications (implant-related and infection) between the SGGS and GR groups were not statistically different. The main difference between the two groups was the threefold difference in overall surgeries.
Authors: A Noelle Larson; Fady J Baky; Tricia St Hilaire; Jeff Pawelek; David L Skaggs; John B Emans; Joshua M Pahys Journal: Spine Deform Date: 2019-01
Authors: Martina Tognini; Harry Hothi; Elisabetta Dal Gal; Masood Shafafy; Colin Nnadi; Stewart Tucker; Johann Henckel; Alister Hart Journal: Eur Spine J Date: 2021-03-05 Impact factor: 3.134