| Literature DB >> 32341327 |
Po-Chih Shen1,2,3, Cheng-Chang Lu1,2,3, Wen-Chen Liang4,5, Yin-Chun Tien1, Yuh-Jyh Jong4,5,6,7, Yen-Mou Lu1, Zi-Miao Liu1, Chia-Lung Shih1, Shih-Hsiang Chou1,3.
Abstract
STUDYEntities:
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32341327 PMCID: PMC7643787 DOI: 10.1097/BSD.0000000000000989
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Clin Spine Surg ISSN: 2380-0186 Impact factor: 1.723
Result of Surgical Treatment of Scoliosis in SMA: Review of the Relevant Literature
| Major Curve of Cobb Angle (deg.) | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| References | Patient Number | Mean Age at Surgery | Length of Follow-up (y) | Preoperative | Postoperative | Final Follow-up |
| Evans et al | 11 | 12 | 6.3 (2–12) | 87.8±21.0 | 44.6±20.3 | 54.9±22.2 |
| Aprin et al | 22 | 12 | 5.7 (0.5–14.7) | 89.1±25.7 | 47.91±20.0 | 52.4±23.6 |
| Riddick et al | 16 | 16.3 | 2.6 (0–7) | 95.8±31.7 | 61.9±23.0 | — |
| Daher et al | 15 | 13.7 | 2.6 (1–4) | 92.5±28.22 | 46.9±21.0 | 54.1±23.6 |
| Broom et al | 40 | 12.0 | 8.5 (2–19) | 61.2±20.2 | 33.2±16.4 | 37.3±17.3 |
| Piasecki et al | 19 | 15.5 | 5.6 (0.2–13.9) | 110.7±21.7 | 69.6±28.1 | 83.4±31.4 |
| Granata et al | 15 | 16 | 5.3 (3–10.2) | 105.8±30.3 | 53.6±18.7 | 58.7±18.7 |
| Robinson et al | 16 | 13.6 | 3.7 (0–9.5) | 87.1±25.4 | 52.9±20.8 | 61.8±21.6 |
| Bentley et al | 33 | — | — | 92 (50–150) | 45 | — |
| Chong et al | 8 | 9.6 | — | 65.4±18 | 22.6±9.5 | — |
| Modi et al | 9 | 15.2 | 2.6 | 86.8±30.3 | 30.5±20.9 | 33.1±21.6 |
| Chong et al | 11 | 12.3 | 1.9±1.0 | 80.7±22.5 | 39.0±19.6 | 41.7±18.7 |
| Zebala et al | 22 | 8.4 | 8.2 (5.1–12.8) | 76.5±21.6 | 29.8±15.7 | 39.3±15.9 |
| Chandran et al | 11 | 6 | 3.6 (2–6.3) | 51.5 (38–76) | 21.6 (2–34) | 18.7 (5–34) |
| Fujak et al | ||||||
| Group A* | 24 | 12.3 | 8.6 (3–12.2) | 83±17 | 39±18 | — |
| Group B* | 17 | 6.7 | 6.1 (2.9–10.2) | 62±16 | 18±10 | — |
| Lenhart et al | 16 | 5.8 | 4.7 (2.7–9.5) | 70.7±24.6 | 27.2±8.9 | 23.4±11.9 |
| Holt et al | 16 | 9.8 | 10.1 (3.1–26) | 78±20 | 25±20 | 27±24 |
*Groups A and B were stabilized with multisegmental instrumentation and telescopic rod, respectively.
SMA indicates spinal muscular atrophy.
FIGURE 1All the posterior-anterior radiography was made with the patient in supine position with the head, trunk, and lower extremities as anatomically straight as possible. A, Preoperative radiography of a 12-year-old girl with closed triradiate cartilage and a 51.1 scoliosis. The major curve of Cobb angle (MCCA), pelvic obliquity (PO), and femoral head coverage percentage (FHCP) were measured as previously described.4,15,16 B, The patient had received segmental spinal instrumentation with pedicle screws and the Galveston pelvic fixation technique. The fusion level was from T2 to the pelvis. Postoperative radiography showed that the residual MCCA was 21.1 degrees and the residual PO was 2 degrees. C, Postoperative radiography at 24 months, with no obvious change in MCCA or PO. “Windshield wiper” sign (iliac bone osteolysis) was observed but this did not cause fusion defects or decrease the PO correction.
Radiographic Measurements for All SMA Patients
| Timepoint | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Radiographic Measurement | Preoperative | Initial Follow-up | Final Follow-up | Preoperative vs. Initial Follow-up | Preoperative vs. Final Follow-up |
| MCCA (deg.) | 69.0±20.9 | 34.6±15.8 | 42.2±23.0 | ||
| Pelvic obliquity (deg.) | 12.1±9.3 | 8.0±6.6 | 10.7±8.2 | 0.209 | |
| Concave-side hip FHCP (%) | 45.2±27.7 | 49.9±28.2 | 43.2±33.5 | 0.100 | 0.605 |
| Convex-side hip FHCP (%) | 80.9±16.9 | 80.8±15.2 | 81.2±21.0 | 0.961 | 0.872 |
Bolded values denote statistical significance to P<0.05.
FHCP indicates femoral head coverage percentage; MCCA, major curve of Cobb angle; SMA, spinal muscular atrophy.
Radiographic Measurements of Progression and Stable Patients
| Timepoint | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Radiographic Measurements | Group | Preoperative | Initial Follow-up | Final Follow-up | Initial Follow-up vs. Final Follow-up |
| Scoliosis progression group: postoperative MCCA increase >10 degrees | |||||
| MCCA (deg.) | Progression | 80.7±23.9 | 44.1±15.1 | 64.7±18.8 | |
| Stable | 62.9±16.75 | 29.7±14.1 | 30.4±14.9 | 0.463 | |
| Pelvic obliquity progression group: postoperative pelvic obliquity increase ≥1 grade | |||||
| Pelvic obliquity (deg.) | Progression | 14.1±10.9 | 5.9±3.1 | 15.0±8.2 | |
| Stable | 8.6±6.9 | 5.6±4.0 | 5.2±3.0 | 0.417 | |
| 0.165 | 0.840 | ||||
| Concave-side hip progression group: concave-side hip increase ≥1 grade | |||||
| Concave-side hip FHCP (%) | Progression | 38.9±15.9 | 45.9±21.2 | 24.8±24.0 | |
| Stable | 58.9±26.2 | 62.8±23.4 | 65.3±25.2 | 0.541 | |
| 0.071 | |||||
Bolded values denote statistical significance to P<0.05.
FHCP indicates femoral head coverage percentage; MCCA, major curve of Cobb angle.
Cox Regression Analyses of Postoperative Deformity Progression in SMA Patients
| Scoliosis | PO | Concave-side Hip | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Progression (n=10) vs. Stable (n=19) | Progression (n=10) vs. Stable (n=14) | Progression (n=11) vs. Stable (n=15) | ||||
| Variables | HR (95% CI) | HR (95% CI) | HR (95% CI) | |||
| Age at surgery (y) | 1.03 (0.858–1.229) | 0.776 | 1.23 (1.036–1.448) | 0.89 (0.718–1.100) | 0.277 | |
| Sex (male vs. female) | 0.24 (0.054–1.080) | 0.063 | 0.53 (0.130–2.183) | 0.382 | 0.41 (0.115–1.462) | 0.169 |
| BMI (kg/m2) | 0.98 (0.851–1.118) | 0.724 | 0.85 (0.707–1.025) | 0.089 | 0.97 (0.851–1.098) | 0.602 |
| SMA type (III vs. II) | 1.38 (0.285–6.709) | 0.687 | 4.73 (0.665–33.560) | 0.120 | 2.90 (0.692–12.180) | 0.145 |
| Pedicle screw use (yes vs. no) | 1.73 (0.428–7.017) | 0.441 | 1.78 (0.432–7.301) | 0.426 | 1.52 (0.444–5.228) | 0.503 |
| Triradiate cartilage (open vs. closed) | 1.32 (0.263–6.580) | 0.738 | 0.36 (0.044–2.996) | 0.348 | 0.98 (0.257–3.704) | 0.972 |
| Initial follow-up | ||||||
| MCCA (deg.) | 1.107 (1.039–1.178) | 1.083 (1.022–1.148) | 1.045 (0.999–1.093) | 0.053 | ||
| PO (deg.) | 1.177 (1.054–1.314) | 1.099 (0.908–1.329) | 0.332 | 1.213 (1.027–1.432) | ||
| Concave-side FHCP (%) | 0.982 (0.958–1.006) | 0.145 | 0.982 (0.956–1.008) | 0.178 | 0.986 (0.963–1.010) | 0.248 |
| Convex-side FHCP (%) | 1.046 (0.980–1.116) | 0.174 | 1.036 (0.971–1.106) | 0.280 | 1.021 (0.975–1.068) | 0.383 |
| Cutoff points of postoperative MCCA at initial follow-up | ||||||
| MCCA ≥20 vs. <20 degrees | 32.91 (0.023–46801) | 0.346 | 35.13 (0.055–22304) | 0.280 | 2.51 (0.317–19.817) | 0.384 |
| MCCA ≥25 vs. <25 degrees | 46.15 (0.133–16043) | 0.199 | 1.99 (0.417–9.516) | 0.388 | 5.21 (0.665–40.841) | 0.116 |
| MCCA ≥30 vs. <30 degrees | 12.02 (1.448–99.727) | 5.20 (1.070–25.232) | 6.42 (1.356–30.381) | |||
| MCCA≥35 vs. <35 degrees | 6.67 (1.330–33.460) | 3.90 (0.963–15.765) | 0.057 | 4.59 (1.187–17.709) | ||
Bolded values denote statistical significance to P<0.05.
BMI indicates body mass index; CI, confidence interval; FHCP, femoral head coverage percentage; HR, hazard ratio; MCCA, major curve of Cobb angle; PO, pelvic obliquity; SMA, spinal muscular atrophy.
Cox Regression Analyses of Postoperative Deformity Progression in SMA Patients After Adjusting for Age, Sex, SMA Type, and BMI
| Scoliosis | PO | Concave-side Hip | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Progression (n=10) vs. Stable (n=19) | Progression (n=10) vs. Stable (n=14) | Progression (n=11) vs. Stable (n=15) | ||||
| Variables | HR (95% CI) | HR (95% CI) | HR (95% CI) | |||
| Pedicle screw use (yes vs. no) | 1.60 (0.367–7.016) | 0.530 | 1.71 (0.359–8.159) | 0.500 | 4.29 (0.753–24.414) | 0.101 |
| Triradiate cartilage (open vs. closed) | 0.10 (0.006–1.712) | 0.112 | 0.01 (0.00–0.866) | 0.12 (0.013–1.126) | 0.064 | |
| Initial follow-up | ||||||
| MCCA (deg.) | 1.217 (1.051–1.410) | 1.132 (1.017–1.261) | 1.042 (0.988–1.099) | 0.130 | ||
| PO (deg.) | 1.188 (1.031–1.370) | 1.129 (0.888–1.436) | 0.323 | 1.181 (1.007–1.384) | ||
| Concave-side FHCP (%) | 0.982 (0.957–1.009) | 0.193 | 0.972 (0.940–1.005) | 0.094 | 0.980 (0.951–1.010) | 0.185 |
| Convex-side FHCP (%) | 1.041 (0.969–1.118) | 0.271 | 1.007 (0.948–1.070) | 0.815 | 1.022 (0.971–1.076) | 0.396 |
| Cutoff points of postoperative MCCA at initial follow-up | ||||||
| MCCA ≥20 vs. <20 degrees | * | * | * | * | 3.29 (0.378–28.623) | 0.280 |
| MCCA ≥25 vs. <25 degrees | * | * | 6.12 (0.519–72.124) | 0.150 | 4.98 (0.616–40.216) | 0.132 |
| MCCA ≥30 vs. <30 degrees | 17.75 (1.539–204) | 6.75 (0.947–48.184) | 0.057 | 7.08 (1.224–40.920) | ||
| MCCA≥35 vs. <35 degrees | 9.77 (1.161–82.151) | 3.41 (0.612–18.979) | 0.162 | 5.18 (1.128–23.785) | ||
Bolded values denote statistical significance to P<0.05.
*Estimated cannot be computed.
BMI indicates body mass index; CI, confidence interval; FHCP, femoral head coverage percentage; HR, hazard ratio; MCCA, major curve of Cobb angle; PO, pelvic obliquity; SMA, spinal muscular atrophy.
FIGURE 2Kaplan-Meier survival analyses of large and low MCCA groups for scoliosis progression (A), pelvic obliquity progression (B), and concave-side hip progression (C). MCCA indicates major curve of Cobb angle.