Peter W Ferlic1,2, Laurenz Hauser1, Michael Götzen1,3, Richard Andreas Lindtner1,4, Stefan Fischler1, Martin Krismer1. 1. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Medical University of Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria. 2. Department of Orthopaedics and Trauma, Medical University of Graz, Graz, Austria. 3. Department of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Hospital Feldkirch, Feldkirch, Austria. 4. Department for Trauma Surgery, Medical University of Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria.
Abstract
AIMS: The aim of this retrospective study was to compare the correction achieved using a convex pedicle screw technique and a low implant density achieved using periapical concave-sided screws and a high implant density. We hypothesized that there would be no difference in outcome between the two techniques. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed a series of 51 patients with a thoracic adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. There were 26 patients in the convex pedicle screw group who had screws implanted periapically (Group 2) and a control group of 25 patients with bilateral pedicle screws (Group 1). The patients' charts were reviewed and pre- and postoperative radiographs evaluated. Postoperative patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) were recorded. RESULTS: The number of implants (14.5 vs 17.1) and the implant density (1.5 vs 1.9) were significantly lower in Group 2 (p < 0.001). Operating time was 27 minutes shorter in Group 2 than in Group 1, with a mean of 217 minutes (SD 50.5; 120 to 346). The duration of surgery per instrumented vertebra was reduced by 19% in Group 2 (p = 0.011). No statistical difference was found in the postoperative Cobb angle, vertebral rotation, the relative correction achieved, or postoperative PROMs. CONCLUSION: Despite a lower implant density and achieving correction through a convex rod, surgical correction of the Cobb angle and vertebral body rotation was similar in both groups. Periapical pedicle screws and primary correction on the concave side do not seem to be mandatory in order to achieve good surgical results in idiopathic thoracic scoliosis. The operating time was shorter in the group with lower implant density. In conclusion, the technique provided good results and has the potential to reduce complications and costs. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(3):536-541.
AIMS: The aim of this retrospective study was to compare the correction achieved using a convex pedicle screw technique and a low implant density achieved using periapical concave-sided screws and a high implant density. We hypothesized that there would be no difference in outcome between the two techniques. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed a series of 51 patients with a thoracic adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. There were 26 patients in the convex pedicle screw group who had screws implanted periapically (Group 2) and a control group of 25 patients with bilateral pedicle screws (Group 1). The patients' charts were reviewed and pre- and postoperative radiographs evaluated. Postoperative patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) were recorded. RESULTS: The number of implants (14.5 vs 17.1) and the implant density (1.5 vs 1.9) were significantly lower in Group 2 (p < 0.001). Operating time was 27 minutes shorter in Group 2 than in Group 1, with a mean of 217 minutes (SD 50.5; 120 to 346). The duration of surgery per instrumented vertebra was reduced by 19% in Group 2 (p = 0.011). No statistical difference was found in the postoperative Cobb angle, vertebral rotation, the relative correction achieved, or postoperative PROMs. CONCLUSION: Despite a lower implant density and achieving correction through a convex rod, surgical correction of the Cobb angle and vertebral body rotation was similar in both groups. Periapical pedicle screws and primary correction on the concave side do not seem to be mandatory in order to achieve good surgical results in idiopathic thoracic scoliosis. The operating time was shorter in the group with lower implant density. In conclusion, the technique provided good results and has the potential to reduce complications and costs. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(3):536-541.