Fernando Guevara-Villazón1, Louis Boissiere2, Kazunori Hayashi2, Daniel Larrieu2, Soufiane Ghailane2, Jean-Marc Vital2, Olivier Gille2, Vincent Pointillart2, Ibrahim Obeid2, Anouar Bourghli3. 1. Department of Spinal Surgery Unit 1, Universite de Bordeaux, Bordeaux University Hospital, C.H.U Tripode Pellegrin, Place Amelie Raba Leon, 33076, Bordeaux, France. fer.guevara@gmail.com. 2. Department of Spinal Surgery Unit 1, Universite de Bordeaux, Bordeaux University Hospital, C.H.U Tripode Pellegrin, Place Amelie Raba Leon, 33076, Bordeaux, France. 3. Orthopedic and Spinal Surgery Department, Kingdom Hospital, P. O. Box 84400, Riyadh, 11671, Saudi Arabia.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Multiple-rod constructs (Multi-Rod: extra rods for additional pillar support) are occasionally used in adult spinal deformity (ASD) surgery. We aimed to compare and analyze the general outcome of multi-rod constructs with a matched two-rod cohort, to better understand the differences and the similitudes. METHODS: This is a retrospective matched cohort study including patients with ASD that underwent surgical correction with long posterior instrumentation (more than five levels), pelvic fixation and a minimum 1-year follow-up. Matching was considered with demographical data, preoperative radiographical parameters, preoperative clinical status [health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL) scores] and surgical characteristics (anterior fusion, decompression, rod material, osteotomies). Postoperative radiographical and clinical parameters, as well as complications, were obtained. Univariate and multivariate analysis was performed regarding postoperative improvement, group variables comparison and parameters correlation. RESULTS: Thirty-three patients with multi-rod construct and 33 matched with a two-rod construct were selected from a database with 346 ASD-operated patients. Both groups had a significant improvement with surgical management in the radiographical and HRQoL parameters (p < 0.001). Differences between groups for the postoperative radiographical, clinical and perioperative parameters were not significant. Rod breakage was more frequent in the two-rod group (8 vs 4, p = 0.089), as well as the respective revision surgery for those cases (6 vs 1 p = 0.046). Risk factors related to revision surgery were greater kyphosis correction (p = 0.001), longer instrumentation (p = 0.037) and greater sagittal vertical axis correction (p = 0.049). CONCLUSION: No major disadvantage on the use of multi-rod construct was identified. This supports the benefit of using multi-rod constructs to avoid implant failure. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.
PURPOSE: Multiple-rod constructs (Multi-Rod: extra rods for additional pillar support) are occasionally used in adult spinal deformity (ASD) surgery. We aimed to compare and analyze the general outcome of multi-rod constructs with a matched two-rod cohort, to better understand the differences and the similitudes. METHODS: This is a retrospective matched cohort study including patients with ASD that underwent surgical correction with long posterior instrumentation (more than five levels), pelvic fixation and a minimum 1-year follow-up. Matching was considered with demographical data, preoperative radiographical parameters, preoperative clinical status [health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL) scores] and surgical characteristics (anterior fusion, decompression, rod material, osteotomies). Postoperative radiographical and clinical parameters, as well as complications, were obtained. Univariate and multivariate analysis was performed regarding postoperative improvement, group variables comparison and parameters correlation. RESULTS: Thirty-three patients with multi-rod construct and 33 matched with a two-rod construct were selected from a database with 346 ASD-operated patients. Both groups had a significant improvement with surgical management in the radiographical and HRQoL parameters (p < 0.001). Differences between groups for the postoperative radiographical, clinical and perioperative parameters were not significant. Rod breakage was more frequent in the two-rod group (8 vs 4, p = 0.089), as well as the respective revision surgery for those cases (6 vs 1 p = 0.046). Risk factors related to revision surgery were greater kyphosis correction (p = 0.001), longer instrumentation (p = 0.037) and greater sagittal vertical axis correction (p = 0.049). CONCLUSION: No major disadvantage on the use of multi-rod construct was identified. This supports the benefit of using multi-rod constructs to avoid implant failure. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.
Authors: Dennis Winge Hallager; Martin Gehrchen; Benny Dahl; Jonathan A Harris; Manasa Gudipally; Sean Jenkins; Ai-Min Wu; Brandon S Bucklen Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2016-04 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: Alexandra Soroceanu; Bassel G Diebo; Douglas Burton; Justin S Smith; Vedat Deviren; Christopher Shaffrey; Han Jo Kim; Gregory Mundis; Christopher Ames; Thomas Errico; Shay Bess; Richard Hostin; Robert Hart; Frank Schwab; Virginie Lafage Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2015-09-15 Impact factor: 3.468
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: Brian P Kelly; Francis H Shen; John S Schwab; Vincent Arlet; Denis J Diangelo Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2008-06-01 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: Mark A Pichelmann; Lawrence G Lenke; Keith H Bridwell; Christopher R Good; Patrick T O'Leary; Brenda A Sides Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2010-01-15 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: Martin H Pham; Vrajesh J Shah; Luis Daniel Diaz-Aguilar; Joseph A Osorio; Ronald A Lehman Journal: Eur Spine J Date: 2021-10-01 Impact factor: 3.134
Authors: Ahmed Habib; Nicolina Jovanovich; Nallammai Muthiah; Ali Alattar; Nima Alan; Nitin Agarwal; Alp Ozpinar; David Kojo Hamilton Journal: Eur Spine J Date: 2022-05-19 Impact factor: 2.721
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