Jean-Marc Mac-Thiong1,2,3, Rodrigo Remondino4, J Joncas5, Stefan Parent6,5,7, Hubert Labelle6,5. 1. University of Montreal, Montreal, Canada. jean-marc.mac-thiong@umontreal.ca. 2. Department of Surgery, CHU Sainte-Justine, 3175 Côte-Sainte-Catherine, Montreal, QC, H3T 1C5, Canada. jean-marc.mac-thiong@umontreal.ca. 3. Hôpital du Sacré-Coeur, Montreal, Canada. jean-marc.mac-thiong@umontreal.ca. 4. Hospital de Pediatra Prof. Dr. Juan P. Garrahan, Buenos Aires, Argentina. 5. Department of Surgery, CHU Sainte-Justine, 3175 Côte-Sainte-Catherine, Montreal, QC, H3T 1C5, Canada. 6. University of Montreal, Montreal, Canada. 7. Hôpital du Sacré-Coeur, Montreal, Canada.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The objective of this study is to determine whether routine follow-up 5 years after adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) surgery is likely to affect postoperative care for patients treated with high-density pedicle screw constructs, when routine 2-year follow-up has been performed. METHODS: We reviewed 80 patients undergoing surgery for AIS using high-density pedicle screw constructs and followed routinely 2 and 5 years after surgery. Quality of life (QOL) was assessed using the SRS-30 outcome questionnaire. Reoperations occurring between 2 and 5 years after surgery were identified. RESULTS: Curve correction and QOL were similar between 2- and 5-year visits. Two patients required revision surgery after presenting during unplanned visits between the 2- and 5-year follow-ups. One patient presented at the routine 5-year visit with an asymptomatic undisplaced rod fracture without loss of correction, and it was decided to follow-up only as needed. CONCLUSIONS: In AIS patients for whom routine follow-up 2 years after surgery using high-density pedicle screw constructs was uneventful, additional routine 5-year follow-up is not likely to affect postoperative care and revision rate. Patients developing complications and needing reoperation between 2 and 5 years after surgery will most likely present during unplanned visits rather than during routine follow-up appointments. Easy access to emergent visits on an as-needed basis is therefore important for this population if routine 5-year follow-up is not planned. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.
PURPOSE: The objective of this study is to determine whether routine follow-up 5 years after adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) surgery is likely to affect postoperative care for patients treated with high-density pedicle screw constructs, when routine 2-year follow-up has been performed. METHODS: We reviewed 80 patients undergoing surgery for AIS using high-density pedicle screw constructs and followed routinely 2 and 5 years after surgery. Quality of life (QOL) was assessed using the SRS-30 outcome questionnaire. Reoperations occurring between 2 and 5 years after surgery were identified. RESULTS: Curve correction and QOL were similar between 2- and 5-year visits. Two patients required revision surgery after presenting during unplanned visits between the 2- and 5-year follow-ups. One patient presented at the routine 5-year visit with an asymptomatic undisplaced rod fracture without loss of correction, and it was decided to follow-up only as needed. CONCLUSIONS: In AIS patients for whom routine follow-up 2 years after surgery using high-density pedicle screw constructs was uneventful, additional routine 5-year follow-up is not likely to affect postoperative care and revision rate. Patients developing complications and needing reoperation between 2 and 5 years after surgery will most likely present during unplanned visits rather than during routine follow-up appointments. Easy access to emergent visits on an as-needed basis is therefore important for this population if routine 5-year follow-up is not planned. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.
Authors: James O Sanders; Mohammad Diab; Stephens B Richards; Lawrence G Lenke; Charles E Johnston; John B Emans; Daniel J Sucato; Mark A Erickson; Keith H Bridwell; Richard E McCarthy; John F Sarwark; John P Dormans Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2011-10-01 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: Marios G Lykissas; Viral V Jain; Senthil T Nathan; Varun Pawar; Emily A Eismann; Peter F Sturm; Alvin H Crawford Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2013-01-15 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: A Noelle Larson; David W Polly; Beverly Diamond; Charles Ledonio; B Stephens Richards; John B Emans; Daniel J Sucato; Charles E Johnston Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2014-04-01 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: Timothy R Kuklo; Benjamin K Potter; Lawrence G Lenke; David W Polly; Brenda Sides; Keith H Bridwell Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2007-09-15 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: David H Clements; Randal R Betz; Peter O Newton; Michael Rohmiller; Michelle C Marks; Tracey Bastrom Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2009-09-15 Impact factor: 3.468