| Popis: |
Study Design Multicenter matched case analysis. Objective Compare patients with Lenke 5C scoliosis surgically treated with anterior spinal fusion with dual rod instrumentation and anterior column support versus posterior release and pedicle screw instrumentation. Summary of Background Data Treatment of single, structural, lumbar and thoracolumbar curves in patients with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) has been the subject of some debate. Previous papers directly comparing these approaches are problematic because of heterogeneity of the groups, nonrandomized protocols, and surgeon bias and variation of instrumentation (upper instrumented vertebrae and lower instrumented vertebrae) in relation to the defined Cobb angle (upper end vertebra and lower end vertebrae). This report sought to remedy these flaws by analyzing a database of Lenke 5C AIS and performing matched cases. Methods We analyzed 96 patients with Lenke 5C AIS curves based on radiographic and clinical data at 3 institutions, surgically treated between 2001 and 2005 with minimum 2-year follow-up. Case matched criteria (age within 1 year, sex, curve within 5°, lower end vertebrae, and lower instrumented vertebrae) yielded 21 matched patient pairs. We evaluated and compared multiple clinical and radiographic parameters. Results We observed no significant statistical differences between groups in any preoperative clinical or radiographic parameters. At final follow-up, the major curve measured 8° (83%) in the posterior spinal fusion group, compared with 13° (72%) in the anterior spinal fusion group (p = .002). Estimated blood loss was similar in both groups. Hospital stay was significantly shorter in the posterior spinal fusion group. There were no differences in radiographic complications, such as proximal junctional kyphosis. Conclusions At a minimum of 2 years' follow-up in a multicenter, matched case analysis, adolescents with Lenke 5C curves demonstrated statistically significantly better curve correction and shorter hospital stays when treated with a posterior release with pedicle screw instrumented fusion compared with an anterior instrumented fusion with dual rods for similar patient populations. |
Full text from SpringerLink