Sachin Gupta1, Murat Sakir Eksi2, Christopher P Ames3, Vedat Deviren2, Blythe Durbin-Johnson1, Justin S Smith4, Munish C Gupta5. 1. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of California, Davis, Sacra-mento, California. 2. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California. 3. Department of Neurosurgery, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California. 4. Department of Neurosurgery, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia. 5. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Washington University, St Louis, Missouri.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Pedicle subtraction osteotomy (PSO) can be used to treat rigid sagittal plane deformities. Nonunions and rod breakages are known complications of PSO. OBJECTIVE: To assess outcomes of 2 methods of posterior instrumentation for PSO, traditional 2 rods vs a novel 4-rod technique in which 2 additional rods span only the osteotomy level. METHODS: This study was a retrospective, radiographic review of consecutive PSOs performed at 2 centers. The primary difference in technique between the centers was the use of 4 rods including 2 independent rods attached only to the vertebral levels immediately adjacent to the PSO (group 1, n = 29 patients) vs the traditional 2-rod technique (group 2, n = 20 patients). RESULTS: Demographics and preoperative to postoperative radiographic measurements were similar between the study groups, including the PSO wedge resection angle (P = .56). The rod breakage rate was 25% with 2 rods and 0% with 4 rods (P = .008), and the pseudarthrosis rate with 2 rods was 25% and with 4 rods was 3.4% (P = .035). The patient with pseudarthrosis from group 1 had an infection and developed pseudarthrosis only after instrumentation removal. Rates of other complications did not differ significantly between the study groups. CONCLUSION: This study provides a comparison between 2 techniques for rod placement across a PSO and suggests that the described novel 4-rod technique may help to reduce the rates of pseudarthrosis and rod failure. It will be important to confirm these findings in a prospectively designed study with multiple institutions in order to better control for potentially confounding factors.
BACKGROUND: Pedicle subtraction osteotomy (PSO) can be used to treat rigid sagittal plane deformities. Nonunions and rod breakages are known complications of PSO. OBJECTIVE: To assess outcomes of 2 methods of posterior instrumentation for PSO, traditional 2 rods vs a novel 4-rod technique in which 2 additional rods span only the osteotomy level. METHODS: This study was a retrospective, radiographic review of consecutive PSOs performed at 2 centers. The primary difference in technique between the centers was the use of 4 rods including 2 independent rods attached only to the vertebral levels immediately adjacent to the PSO (group 1, n = 29 patients) vs the traditional 2-rod technique (group 2, n = 20 patients). RESULTS: Demographics and preoperative to postoperative radiographic measurements were similar between the study groups, including the PSO wedge resection angle (P = .56). The rod breakage rate was 25% with 2 rods and 0% with 4 rods (P = .008), and the pseudarthrosis rate with 2 rods was 25% and with 4 rods was 3.4% (P = .035). The patient with pseudarthrosis from group 1 had an infection and developed pseudarthrosis only after instrumentation removal. Rates of other complications did not differ significantly between the study groups. CONCLUSION: This study provides a comparison between 2 techniques for rod placement across a PSO and suggests that the described novel 4-rod technique may help to reduce the rates of pseudarthrosis and rod failure. It will be important to confirm these findings in a prospectively designed study with multiple institutions in order to better control for potentially confounding factors.
Authors: Leah Y Carreon; Rolando M Puno; John R Dimar; Steven D Glassman; John R Johnson Journal: J Bone Joint Surg Am Date: 2003-11 Impact factor: 5.284
Authors: Seung-Jae Hyun; Lawrence G Lenke; Yong-Chan Kim; Linda A Koester; Kathy M Blanke Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2014-10-15 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: Justin S Smith; Ellen Shaffrey; Eric Klineberg; Christopher I Shaffrey; Virginie Lafage; Frank J Schwab; Themistocles Protopsaltis; Justin K Scheer; Gregory M Mundis; Kai-Ming G Fu; Munish C Gupta; Richard Hostin; Vedat Deviren; Khaled Kebaish; Robert Hart; Douglas C Burton; Breton Line; Shay Bess; Christopher P Ames Journal: J Neurosurg Spine Date: 2014-10-17
Authors: Justin S Smith; Christopher I Shaffrey; Christopher P Ames; Jason Demakakos; Kai-Ming G Fu; Sassan Keshavarzi; Carol M Y Li; Vedat Deviren; Frank J Schwab; Virginie Lafage; Shay Bess Journal: Neurosurgery Date: 2012-10 Impact factor: 4.654
Authors: Luigi La Barbera; Hans-Joachim Wilke; Christian Liebsch; Tomaso Villa; Andrea Luca; Fabio Galbusera; Marco Brayda-Bruno Journal: Eur Spine J Date: 2019-08-14 Impact factor: 3.134
Authors: Luigi La Barbera; Marco Brayda-Bruno; Christian Liebsch; Tomaso Villa; Andrea Luca; Fabio Galbusera; Hans-Joachim Wilke Journal: Eur Spine J Date: 2018-05-08 Impact factor: 3.134
Authors: Justin S Smith; Christopher I Shaffrey; Michael P Kelly; Elizabeth L Yanik; Jon D Lurie; Christine R Baldus; Charles Edwards; Steven D Glassman; Lawrence G Lenke; Oheneba Boachie-Adjei; Jacob M Buchowski; Leah Y Carreon; Charles H Crawford; Thomas J Errico; Stephen J Lewis; Tyler Koski; Stefan Parent; Han Jo Kim; Christopher P Ames; Shay Bess; Frank J Schwab; Keith H Bridwell Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2019-09-01 Impact factor: 3.241
Authors: Anouar Bourghli; Louis Boissière; David Kieser; Daniel Larrieu; Javier Pizones; Ahmet Alanay; Ferran Pellise; Franck Kleinstück; Ibrahim Obeid Journal: Neurospine Date: 2021-10-21
Authors: Whoan Jeang Kim; Hyun Min Shin; Dae Geon Song; Jae Won Lee; Kun Young Park; Shann Haw Chang; Jin Hyun Bae; Won Sik Choy Journal: Clin Orthop Surg Date: 2021-04-23