Samuel Wei Han Tan1, Graham S Goh2, Lei Jiang2, Reuben Chee Cheong Soh2. 1. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Singapore General Hospital, 20 College Road, Academia, Level 4, Singapore, 169865, Singapore. samueltanweihan@gmail.com. 2. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Singapore General Hospital, 20 College Road, Academia, Level 4, Singapore, 169865, Singapore.
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective study. OBJECTIVE: (1) Compare outcomes of all-pedicle screws (PS) and hook-hybrid (H) constructs in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) patients; and (2) investigate whether BMI, height or pedicle size may modify the effect of the type of surgical construct on the extent of curve decompensation. METHODS: AIS patients who underwent surgical fixation with H or PS constructs at a single tertiary institution were reviewed. Patients with implant density of at least 70% and 2-year follow-up were included. Demographic and perioperative data collected were age, sex, height, BMI, implant density and pedicle diameter. Cobb's angles and curve correction were compared preoperatively, postoperatively and at follow-up. RESULTS: In total, 59 patients were included. H group had a lower pedicle size at the highest level of construct and at T4 compared to PS group. Postoperatively, H group (30.2° ± 11.7°) and PS group (32.1° ± 10.4°) had similar correction (mean diff. 2.0°, p = 0.516). At 2-year follow-up, H group (1.6° ± 3.5°) and PS group (0.1° ± 2.8°) had similar curve deterioration (mean diff. 1.5°, p = 0.079). Uni- and multivariate analyses revealed that BMI and height were not associated with curve deterioration at 2-year follow-up among the H and PS groups. CONCLUSION: H constructs provided similar maintenance of curve correction at 2-year follow-up compared to PS constructs. BMI and Stature did not modify curve deterioration between both groups at follow-up. This study supports the use of H constructs when faced with difficult pedicle morphology associated with shorter stature as it provides comparable and satisfactory long-term maintenance of curve correction. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, retrospective cohort study.
STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective study. OBJECTIVE: (1) Compare outcomes of all-pedicle screws (PS) and hook-hybrid (H) constructs in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) patients; and (2) investigate whether BMI, height or pedicle size may modify the effect of the type of surgical construct on the extent of curve decompensation. METHODS: AIS patients who underwent surgical fixation with H or PS constructs at a single tertiary institution were reviewed. Patients with implant density of at least 70% and 2-year follow-up were included. Demographic and perioperative data collected were age, sex, height, BMI, implant density and pedicle diameter. Cobb's angles and curve correction were compared preoperatively, postoperatively and at follow-up. RESULTS: In total, 59 patients were included. H group had a lower pedicle size at the highest level of construct and at T4 compared to PS group. Postoperatively, H group (30.2° ± 11.7°) and PS group (32.1° ± 10.4°) had similar correction (mean diff. 2.0°, p = 0.516). At 2-year follow-up, H group (1.6° ± 3.5°) and PS group (0.1° ± 2.8°) had similar curve deterioration (mean diff. 1.5°, p = 0.079). Uni- and multivariate analyses revealed that BMI and height were not associated with curve deterioration at 2-year follow-up among the H and PS groups. CONCLUSION: H constructs provided similar maintenance of curve correction at 2-year follow-up compared to PS constructs. BMI and Stature did not modify curve deterioration between both groups at follow-up. This study supports the use of H constructs when faced with difficult pedicle morphology associated with shorter stature as it provides comparable and satisfactory long-term maintenance of curve correction. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, retrospective cohort study.
Authors: Stephen K Storer; Michael G Vitale; Joshua E Hyman; Francis Y Lee; Julie C Choe; David P Roye Journal: J Pediatr Orthop Date: 2005 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 2.324
Authors: Guney Yilmaz; Battugs Borkhuu; Arjun A Dhawale; Murat Oto; Aaron G Littleton; Dan E Mason; Peter G Gabos; Suken A Shah Journal: J Pediatr Orthop Date: 2012 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 2.324
Authors: Gang Li; Guohua Lv; Peter Passias; Michal Kozanek; Umesh S Metkar; Zhongjun Liu; Kirkham B Wood; Lubos Rehak; Youwen Deng Journal: Eur Spine J Date: 2010-03-17 Impact factor: 3.134
Authors: Ivan Cheng; Yongjung Kim; Munish C Gupta; Keith H Bridwell; Robert K Hurford; Stanley S Lee; Thongchai Theerajunyaporn; Lawrence G Lenke Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2005-09-15 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: Yongjung J Kim; Lawrence G Lenke; Samuel K Cho; Keith H Bridwell; Brenda Sides; Kathy Blanke Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2004-09-15 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: Mario Di Silvestre; Patrizio Parisini; Francesco Lolli; Georgios Bakaloudis Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2007-07-01 Impact factor: 3.468