Hong Zhang1, Daniel J Sucato2. 1. Texas Scottish Rite Hospital for Children, 2222 Welborn St, Dallas, TX 75219, USA; Department of Orthopedic Surgery, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas, 5323 Harry Hines Blvd., Dallas, TX 75390, USA. Electronic address: hong.zhang@tsrh.org. 2. Texas Scottish Rite Hospital for Children, 2222 Welborn St, Dallas, TX 75219, USA; Department of Orthopedic Surgery, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas, 5323 Harry Hines Blvd., Dallas, TX 75390, USA.
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective review. OBJECTIVES: To compare the Cobb >75° scoliosis correction obtained using a novel Rod-Link-Reducer (RLR) system versus traditional corrective techniques (TCT) in patients with severe adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Current implant strategies provide for good correction, especially for moderate curves; however, severe scoliosis continues to be challenging to obtain correction in a safe and effective manner. METHODS: A novel correction device was developed so that two provisional rods are placed on the convex side of the scoliosis proximally and distally, which are then linked to an external reduction device termed the RLR. A retrospective analysis was performed to compare the RLR versus the TCT in patients with curve >75° with the diagnosis of AIS with respect to the radiographic outcomes, operative time, intraoperative blood loss, complications, and SRS-30 scores of a minimum 2-year follow-up. RESULTS: A total of 36 patients were evaluated (RLR-18, TCT-18). The data sets were similar for age, gender, coronal Cobb, curve flexibility, and follow-up period. The mean preoperative Cobb for the RLR group was 91.7° (76°-113°) and 91.8° (78°-108°) for the TCT group. The mean coronal Cobb correction rate was significantly greater for the RLR group (73.1% vs. 56.6%, p < .0001). The mean operative time was 74.8 minutes shorter in the RLR group (316.6 minutes vs. 391.4 minutes, p = .03). There were 2 late-developing infections and 3 intraoperative neuro-monitoring changes during the correction maneuvers in the TCT group compared with none in the RLR group (p = .02). CONCLUSION: In a matched cohort, the use of the RLR exhibited greater coronal Cobb correction, shorter operative time, and was less likely to have critical neuro-monitoring changes compared with the TCT group. The RLR provides safer and improved correction for severe curves without adding surgical risk. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.
STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective review. OBJECTIVES: To compare the Cobb >75° scoliosis correction obtained using a novel Rod-Link-Reducer (RLR) system versus traditional corrective techniques (TCT) in patients with severe adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Current implant strategies provide for good correction, especially for moderate curves; however, severe scoliosis continues to be challenging to obtain correction in a safe and effective manner. METHODS: A novel correction device was developed so that two provisional rods are placed on the convex side of the scoliosis proximally and distally, which are then linked to an external reduction device termed the RLR. A retrospective analysis was performed to compare the RLR versus the TCT in patients with curve >75° with the diagnosis of AIS with respect to the radiographic outcomes, operative time, intraoperative blood loss, complications, and SRS-30 scores of a minimum 2-year follow-up. RESULTS: A total of 36 patients were evaluated (RLR-18, TCT-18). The data sets were similar for age, gender, coronal Cobb, curve flexibility, and follow-up period. The mean preoperative Cobb for the RLR group was 91.7° (76°-113°) and 91.8° (78°-108°) for the TCT group. The mean coronal Cobb correction rate was significantly greater for the RLR group (73.1% vs. 56.6%, p < .0001). The mean operative time was 74.8 minutes shorter in the RLR group (316.6 minutes vs. 391.4 minutes, p = .03). There were 2 late-developing infections and 3 intraoperative neuro-monitoring changes during the correction maneuvers in the TCT group compared with none in the RLR group (p = .02). CONCLUSION: In a matched cohort, the use of the RLR exhibited greater coronal Cobb correction, shorter operative time, and was less likely to have critical neuro-monitoring changes compared with the TCT group. The RLR provides safer and improved correction for severe curves without adding surgical risk. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.