Gao Si1, Tong Li1, Yu Wang2, Xiaoguang Liu1, Chunde Li2, Miao Yu3. 1. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Peking University Third Hospital, 49 Huayuan North Road, Haidian District, Beijing, People's Republic of China. 2. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Peking University First Hospital, Beijing, People's Republic of China. 3. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Peking University Third Hospital, 49 Huayuan North Road, Haidian District, Beijing, People's Republic of China. ym_puth@outlook.com.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare the safety and efficacy of posterior minimally invasive surgery (MIS) to standard posterior spinal fusion (PSF) surgery for Lenke Type 1-4 adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS). METHODS: This multicenter retrospective study enrolled 112 patients with Lenke Type 1-4 AIS who treated with MIS (n = 64) or PSF (n = 48) between March 2007 and January 2015. Coronal and sagittal parameters were evaluated before surgery, immediately after surgery, and at the last follow-up. Operative time, level of fusion, intraoperative blood loss, blood transfusion, and intraoperative radiation exposure were recorded. 22-item Scoliosis Research Society questionnaire (SRS-22) was applied for assessment of life quality. The accuracy of pedicle screw placement was assessed according to postoperative computed tomography images, and the complications were collected in follow-up period. RESULTS: The baseline characteristics of 2 groups were matched. There was no significant difference between 2 groups in terms of radiographic parameters immediately after surgery and at the last follow-up. The MIS group had significantly longer operative time, more level of fusion, less intraoperative blood loss, and lower blood transfusion rate (p < 0.001). The evaluation of pain using SRS-22 showed significantly lower score in MIS group (p < 0.05). No significant difference was found between 2 groups in terms of accuracy of pedicle screw placement and complications. CONCLUSION: Posterior MIS is a safe and effective alternative to standard open approach for Lenke Type 1-4 AIS patients with curves < 70° and reasonable flexibility. Mid-term results showed MIS had the advantages of less blood loss and pain with more fusion segments.
PURPOSE: To compare the safety and efficacy of posterior minimally invasive surgery (MIS) to standard posterior spinal fusion (PSF) surgery for Lenke Type 1-4 adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS). METHODS: This multicenter retrospective study enrolled 112 patients with Lenke Type 1-4 AIS who treated with MIS (n = 64) or PSF (n = 48) between March 2007 and January 2015. Coronal and sagittal parameters were evaluated before surgery, immediately after surgery, and at the last follow-up. Operative time, level of fusion, intraoperative blood loss, blood transfusion, and intraoperative radiation exposure were recorded. 22-item Scoliosis Research Society questionnaire (SRS-22) was applied for assessment of life quality. The accuracy of pedicle screw placement was assessed according to postoperative computed tomography images, and the complications were collected in follow-up period. RESULTS: The baseline characteristics of 2 groups were matched. There was no significant difference between 2 groups in terms of radiographic parameters immediately after surgery and at the last follow-up. The MIS group had significantly longer operative time, more level of fusion, less intraoperative blood loss, and lower blood transfusion rate (p < 0.001). The evaluation of pain using SRS-22 showed significantly lower score in MIS group (p < 0.05). No significant difference was found between 2 groups in terms of accuracy of pedicle screw placement and complications. CONCLUSION: Posterior MIS is a safe and effective alternative to standard open approach for Lenke Type 1-4 AISpatients with curves < 70° and reasonable flexibility. Mid-term results showed MIS had the advantages of less blood loss and pain with more fusion segments.
Authors: Vishal Sarwahi; Jonathan J Horn; Preethi M Kulkarni; Adam L Wollowick; Yungtai Lo; Melanie Gambassi; Terry D Amaral Journal: Clin Spine Surg Date: 2016-10 Impact factor: 1.876