Vincent Lamas1, Yann Philippe Charles2, Nicolas Tuzin3, Jean-Paul Steib2. 1. Service de Chirurgie du Rachis, Hôpitaux Universitaires de Strasbourg, Fédération de Médecine Translationnelle (FMTS), Université de Strasbourg, 1 Avenue Molière, 67200, Strasbourg, France. lamas.vincent@gmail.com. 2. Service de Chirurgie du Rachis, Hôpitaux Universitaires de Strasbourg, Fédération de Médecine Translationnelle (FMTS), Université de Strasbourg, 1 Avenue Molière, 67200, Strasbourg, France. 3. Service de Santé Publique, Hôpitaux Universitaires de Strasbourg, Fédération de Médecine Translationnelle (FMTS), Université de Strasbourg, Strasbourg, France.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Four-rod instrumentation and interbody fusion may reduce mechanical complications in degenerative scoliosis surgery compared to 2-rod instrumentation. The purpose was to compare clinical results, sagittal alignment and mechanical complications with both techniques. METHODS: Full spine radiographs were analysed in 97 patients instrumented to the pelvis: 58 2-rod constructs (2R) and 39 4-rod constructs (4R). Clinical scores (VAS, ODI, SRS-22, EQ-5D-3L) were assessed preoperatively, at 3 months, 1 year and last follow-up (average 4.2 years). Radiographic measurements were: thoracic kyphosis, lumbar lordosis, spinopelvic parameters, segmental lordosis distribution. The incidence of non-union and PJK were investigated. RESULTS: All clinical scores improved significantly in both groups between preoperative and last follow-up. In the 2R-group, lumbar lordosis increased to 52.8° postoperatively and decreased to 47.0° at follow-up (p = 0.008). In the 4R-group, lumbar lordosis increased from 46.4 to 52.5° postoperatively and remained at 53.4° at follow-up. There were 8 (13.8%) PJK in the 2R-group versus 6 (15.4%) in the 4R-group, with a mismatch between lumbar apex and theoretic lumbar shape according to pelvic incidence. Non-union requiring revision surgery occurred on average at 26.9 months in 28 patients (48.3%) of the 2R-group. No rod fracture was diagnosed in the 4R-group. CONCLUSION: Multi-level interbody fusion combined with 4-rod instrumentation decreased risk for non-union and revision surgery compared to select interbody fusion and 2-rod instrumentation. The role of additional rods on load sharing still needs to be determined when multiple cages are used. Despite revision surgery in the 2R group, final clinical outcomes were similar in both groups. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.
PURPOSE: Four-rod instrumentation and interbody fusion may reduce mechanical complications in degenerative scoliosis surgery compared to 2-rod instrumentation. The purpose was to compare clinical results, sagittal alignment and mechanical complications with both techniques. METHODS: Full spine radiographs were analysed in 97 patients instrumented to the pelvis: 58 2-rod constructs (2R) and 39 4-rod constructs (4R). Clinical scores (VAS, ODI, SRS-22, EQ-5D-3L) were assessed preoperatively, at 3 months, 1 year and last follow-up (average 4.2 years). Radiographic measurements were: thoracic kyphosis, lumbar lordosis, spinopelvic parameters, segmental lordosis distribution. The incidence of non-union and PJK were investigated. RESULTS: All clinical scores improved significantly in both groups between preoperative and last follow-up. In the 2R-group, lumbar lordosis increased to 52.8° postoperatively and decreased to 47.0° at follow-up (p = 0.008). In the 4R-group, lumbar lordosis increased from 46.4 to 52.5° postoperatively and remained at 53.4° at follow-up. There were 8 (13.8%) PJK in the 2R-group versus 6 (15.4%) in the 4R-group, with a mismatch between lumbar apex and theoretic lumbar shape according to pelvic incidence. Non-union requiring revision surgery occurred on average at 26.9 months in 28 patients (48.3%) of the 2R-group. No rod fracture was diagnosed in the 4R-group. CONCLUSION: Multi-level interbody fusion combined with 4-rod instrumentation decreased risk for non-union and revision surgery compared to select interbody fusion and 2-rod instrumentation. The role of additional rods on load sharing still needs to be determined when multiple cages are used. Despite revision surgery in the 2R group, final clinical outcomes were similar in both groups. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.
Authors: Amer Sebaaly; Clément Sylvestre; Yehya El Quehtani; Guillaume Riouallon; Daniel Larrieu; Louis Boissiere; Jean Paul Steib; Pierre Roussouly; Stéphane Wolff; Ibrahim Obeid Journal: Clin Spine Surg Date: 2018-04 Impact factor: 1.876
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: Javier Pizones; Montserrat Baldan Martin; Francisco Javier Sánchez Perez-Grueso; Caglar Yilgor; Alba Vila-Casademunt; Miquel Serra-Burriel; Ibrahim Obeid; Ahmet Alanay; Emre R Acaroglu; Ferran Pellisé Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2019-02-15 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: Samuel K Cho; Keith H Bridwell; Lawrence G Lenke; Woojin Cho; Lukas P Zebala; Joshua M Pahys; Matthew M Kang; Jin-Seok Yi; Christine R Baldus Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2012-03-01 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: Peggy Guey-Chi Chen; Michael D Daubs; Sigurd Berven; Laura B Raaen; Ashaunta T Anderson; Steven M Asch; Teryl K Nuckols Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2016-05 Impact factor: 3.468