Literature DB >> 32174071

[Effectiveness of short fusion versus long fusion for degenerative scoliosis with a Cobb angle of 20-40° combined with spinal stenosis].

Yuanqiang Li1, Yunsheng Ou1, Yong Zhu1, Zenghui Zhao1, Wei Luo1, Shuai Xu1, Haoyang Yu1.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness of decompression and short fusion or long fusion for degenerative scoliosis (DS) with a Cobb angle of 20-40° combined with spinal stenosis.
METHODS: The clinical data of 50 patients with DS who were treated with decompression combined with short fusion or long fusion between January 2015 and May 2017 were retrospectively analysed. Patients were divided into long fusion group (fixed segments>3, 23 cases) and short fusion group (fixed segments≤3, 27 cases). There was no significant difference in gender, age, disease duration, and preoperative visual analogue scale (VAS) score of leg pain, Oswestry disability index (ODI), thoracic kyphosis (TK), thoracolumbar kyphosis (TLK), pelvic incidence (PI), pelvic title (PT), and sacral slope (SS) between the two groups ( P>0.05); however, the VAS score of low back pain, Cobb angle, and sagittal vertical axis (SVA) in long fusion group were significantly higher than those in short fusion group ( P<0.05), and the lumbar lordosis (LL) was significantly lower than that in short fusion group ( t=2.427, P=0.019). The operation time, intraoperative blood loss, fluoroscopy times, hospital stay, and complications were recorded and compared. The VAS scores of low back pain and leg pain and ODI score were used to evaluate the clinical outcomes before operation and at last follow-up. X-ray films of the whole spine in standard standing position were taken before operation, at 6 months after operation, and at last follow-up, and the spino-pelvic parameters were measured.
RESULTS: The operation time, intraoperative blood loss, and fluoroscopy times in the short fusion group were significantly less than those in the long fusion group ( P<0.05); there was no significant difference in hospital stay between the two groups ( t=0.933, P=0.355). The patients were followed up 12-46 months with an average of 22.3 months. At last follow-up, the VAS scores of low back pain and leg pain and ODI score significantly improved when compared with those before operation ( P<0.05). Except for the improvement of VAS score of low back pain ( t=8.332, P=0.000), the differences of the improvements of the other scores between the two groups were not significant ( P>0.05). The Cobb angle, SVA, TLK, and PT significantly decreased, while SS and LL significantly increased in the long fusion group ( P<0.05), while the Cobb angle and PT significantly decreased and SS significantly increased in the short fusion group at last follow-up ( P<0.05). There was no significant difference in spino-pelvic parameters between the two groups at 6 months after operation and at last follow-up ( P>0.05). The improvements of Cobb angle, SVA, LL, PT, and SS in the long fusion group were significantly higher than those in the short fusion group at last follow-up ( P<0.05). There was no perioperative death in both groups. The incidence of complications in the long fusion group was 34.8% (8/23), which was significantly higher than that in the short fusion group [11.1% (3/27)] ( χ 2=4.056, P=0.034).
CONCLUSION: The DS patients with the Cobb angle of 20-40°can achieve satisfactory clinical outcomes and improve the spino-pelvic parameters by choosing appropriate fixation levels. Short fusion has less surgical trauma and fewer complications, whereas long fusion has more advantages in enhancing spino-pelvic parameters and relieving low back pain.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Degenerative scoliosis; long fusion; posterior decompression; short fusion; spino-plevic parameters

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 32174071      PMCID: PMC8171657          DOI: 10.7507/1002-1892.201905105

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Zhongguo Xiu Fu Chong Jian Wai Ke Za Zhi        ISSN: 1002-1892


  17 in total

1.  Scoliosis Research Society-Schwab adult spinal deformity classification: a validation study.

Authors:  Frank Schwab; Benjamin Ungar; Benjamin Blondel; Jacob Buchowski; Jeffrey Coe; Donald Deinlein; Christopher DeWald; Hossein Mehdian; Christopher Shaffrey; Clifford Tribus; Virginie Lafage
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2012-05-20       Impact factor: 3.468

2.  Adult degenerative scoliosis: evaluation and management.

Authors:  Fernando E Silva; Lawrence G Lenke
Journal:  Neurosurg Focus       Date:  2010-03       Impact factor: 4.047

3.  Clinical and radiological outcomes after decompression and posterior fusion in patients with degenerative scoliosis.

Authors:  Majid Reza Farrokhi; Mohammad Jamali; Mehrnaz Gholami; Farnaz Farrokhi; Khadijeh Hosseini
Journal:  Br J Neurosurg       Date:  2017-04-19       Impact factor: 1.596

4.  Comparison in clinical outcome of two surgical treatments in degenerative scoliosis.

Authors:  Yapeng Sun; Yong Shen; Wenyuan Ding; Suhui Qie; Wei Zhang; Dalong Yang; Linfeng Wang
Journal:  Cell Biochem Biophys       Date:  2014-09       Impact factor: 2.194

Review 5.  Outcomes of Short Fusion versus Long Fusion for Adult Degenerative Scoliosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Authors:  Kevin Phan; Joshua Xu; Monish M Maharaj; Julian Li; Jun S Kim; John Di Capua; Sulaiman Somani; Kimberly-Anne Tan; Ralph J Mobbs; Samuel K Cho
Journal:  Orthop Surg       Date:  2017-11       Impact factor: 2.071

6.  Coronal imbalance in degenerative lumbar scoliosis: Prevalence and influence on surgical decision-making for spinal osteotomy.

Authors:  H Bao; P Yan; Y Qiu; Z Liu; F Zhu
Journal:  Bone Joint J       Date:  2016-09       Impact factor: 5.082

7.  Lumbar multifidus muscle degenerates in individuals with chronic degenerative lumbar spine pathology.

Authors:  Bahar Shahidi; James C Hubbard; Michael C Gibbons; Severin Ruoss; Vinko Zlomislic; Richard Todd Allen; Steven R Garfin; Samuel R Ward
Journal:  J Orthop Res       Date:  2017-05-23       Impact factor: 3.494

8.  An analysis of spinopelvic sagittal alignment after lumbar lordosis reconstruction for degenerative spinal diseases: how much balance can be obtained?

Authors:  Hui Liu; Sibei Li; Jiranru Wang; Taiping Wang; Hao Yang; Zemin Li; Xiang Li; Zhaomin Zheng
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2014-12-15       Impact factor: 3.468

Review 9.  Current classification systems for adult degenerative scoliosis.

Authors:  C Faldini; A Di Martino; M De Fine; M T Miscione; C Calamelli; A Mazzotti; F Perna
Journal:  Musculoskelet Surg       Date:  2013-04-04

Review 10.  Degenerative Scoliosis.

Authors:  Philip J York; Han Jo Kim
Journal:  Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med       Date:  2017-12
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.