Søren Ohrt-Nissen1, Dennis W Hallager2, Ture Karbo2, Martin Gehrchen2, Benny Dahl3. 1. Spine Unit, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Rigshospitalet, University of Copenhagen, Nørregade 10, 1165 København, Denmark. Electronic address: ohrtnissen@gmail.com. 2. Spine Unit, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Rigshospitalet, University of Copenhagen, Nørregade 10, 1165 København, Denmark. 3. Department of Orthopedics and Scoliosis Surgery, Texas Children's Hospital, TX, USA.
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. OBJECTIVE: To compare radiographic outcome and health-related quality of life in patients with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) treated with hook/hybrid (H/H) or all-pedicle screw (PS) instrumentation. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: PS instrumentation has largely replaced H/H in the surgical treatment of AIS but whether a normalized sagittal profile can be obtained with the PS construct is still debated. Additionally, comparative studies assessing HRQL and surgical complications are needed. METHODS: Two consecutive series of surgically treated AIS patients were included. Surgical treatment consisted of H/H or low-profile all-PS instrumentation. Radiographic and clinical follow-up, including SRS-22r questionnaires, was performed a minimum of two years postoperatively. RESULTS: There were 85 and 64 patients in the H/H and PS group, respectively. The groups did not differ on baseline parameters apart from a lower flexibility in the H/H group (34% ± 14% vs. 39% ± 14% in the PS group, p = .026). Mean curve correction at final follow-up was 31% ± 13% versus 49% ± 12% in the H/H and PS group, respectively (p < .001), and mean loss of correction was 7° versus 4° (p < .001). The Cincinnati correction index was significantly higher in the PS group at final follow-up (p < .001). Postoperative thoracic kyphosis was significantly higher in the H/H group (27° ± 11° vs. 22° ± 11° in the PS group) with a mean change in kyphosis of 3° ± 9° versus -3° ± 12° in the H/H and PS group, respectively. SRS-22 scores did not differ between the two groups (p > .090), and the reoperation rate at final follow-up was 9% in the H/H group and 6% in the PS group (p = .556). CONCLUSIONS: In a large consecutive cohort of AIS patients followed for a minimum of two years, we found a significantly better curve correction and less loss of correction with PS instrumentation compared to H/H. There was no significant difference in SRS-22r scores at final follow-up. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.
STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. OBJECTIVE: To compare radiographic outcome and health-related quality of life in patients with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) treated with hook/hybrid (H/H) or all-pedicle screw (PS) instrumentation. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: PS instrumentation has largely replaced H/H in the surgical treatment of AIS but whether a normalized sagittal profile can be obtained with the PS construct is still debated. Additionally, comparative studies assessing HRQL and surgical complications are needed. METHODS: Two consecutive series of surgically treated AISpatients were included. Surgical treatment consisted of H/H or low-profile all-PS instrumentation. Radiographic and clinical follow-up, including SRS-22r questionnaires, was performed a minimum of two years postoperatively. RESULTS: There were 85 and 64 patients in the H/H and PS group, respectively. The groups did not differ on baseline parameters apart from a lower flexibility in the H/H group (34% ± 14% vs. 39% ± 14% in the PS group, p = .026). Mean curve correction at final follow-up was 31% ± 13% versus 49% ± 12% in the H/H and PS group, respectively (p < .001), and mean loss of correction was 7° versus 4° (p < .001). The Cincinnati correction index was significantly higher in the PS group at final follow-up (p < .001). Postoperative thoracic kyphosis was significantly higher in the H/H group (27° ± 11° vs. 22° ± 11° in the PS group) with a mean change in kyphosis of 3° ± 9° versus -3° ± 12° in the H/H and PS group, respectively. SRS-22 scores did not differ between the two groups (p > .090), and the reoperation rate at final follow-up was 9% in the H/H group and 6% in the PS group (p = .556). CONCLUSIONS: In a large consecutive cohort of AISpatients followed for a minimum of two years, we found a significantly better curve correction and less loss of correction with PS instrumentation compared to H/H. There was no significant difference in SRS-22r scores at final follow-up. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.
Authors: Lotte Deirdre Elizabeth Dingena Maria Smals; Marcus Hubertus Harrietta Maria Hulsbosch; Sjoerd Ian Patrick Jozef de Faber; Jacobus J C Arts; Lodewijk W van Rhijn; Paul Cornelis Willems Journal: N Am Spine Soc J Date: 2021-10-16