Outcomes of Traditional Dual Growing Rods With Apical Control Techniques for the Treatment of Early-Onset Scoliosis: Comparison With Patients Treated With Traditional Dual Growing Rods Only With a Minimum 2-Year Follow-up After Graduation.
{"title":"Outcomes of Traditional Dual Growing Rods With Apical Control Techniques for the Treatment of Early-Onset Scoliosis: Comparison With Patients Treated With Traditional Dual Growing Rods Only With a Minimum 2-Year Follow-up After Graduation.","authors":"Chenkai Li,Xiaohan Ye,Yang Yang,Guanfeng Lin,Jianxiong Shen,Yu Zhao,Nan Wu,Qianyu Zhuang,Shengru Wang,Jianguo Zhang","doi":"10.1227/neu.0000000000003178","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES\r\nCorrection with traditional dual growing rods (TDGR) might not be sufficient for severe and rigid spinal deformity. TDGR combines with apical control techniques (ACT) could theoretically improve curve correction and decrease the incidence of mechanical complications. However, long-term results for TDGR with ACT are limited. The aim of this study was to retrospectively review and compare the outcomes of patients who graduated from TDGR with or without ACT.\r\n\r\nMETHODS\r\nPatients who were treated by TDGR with or without ACT with a minimum 2-year follow-up after graduation were enrolled. According to the intervention for the apex, patients were further divided into the TDGR group, the TDGR + apical control pedicle screws group (without apical fusion), and the TDGR + hybrid technique group. Clinical outcomes, radiological parameters, pulmonary function, and complications were compared among the 3 groups.\r\n\r\nRESULTS\r\nA total of 76 patients (51 patients in the TDGR group, 10 patients in the apical control pedicle screws group, and 15 patients in the hybrid technique group) were enrolled. Compared with TDGR, TDGR + ACT achieved better main curve correction, better control of apical vertebral translation and rotation, and lower incidence of complications and revision surgery (P < .05) while maintaining development of the spine and chest. Although the difference was not significant, patients in the TDGR + ACT group had better pulmonary function at the last follow-up (P > .05). The percentage of patients receiving final fusion in the TDGR + ACT group was significantly lower than that in the TDGR group (P < .05).\r\n\r\nCONCLUSION\r\nCompared with TDGR, TDGR + ACT can achieve better curve correction and apical control and comparable clinical outcomes while maintaining the growth of the spine and chest. Patients may derive more benefits from treatment with TDGR + ACT, including a lower incidence of mechanical complications and revision surgery, better pulmonary function, and the avoidance of final fusion.","PeriodicalId":19276,"journal":{"name":"Neurosurgery","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Neurosurgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1227/neu.0000000000003178","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES
Correction with traditional dual growing rods (TDGR) might not be sufficient for severe and rigid spinal deformity. TDGR combines with apical control techniques (ACT) could theoretically improve curve correction and decrease the incidence of mechanical complications. However, long-term results for TDGR with ACT are limited. The aim of this study was to retrospectively review and compare the outcomes of patients who graduated from TDGR with or without ACT.
METHODS
Patients who were treated by TDGR with or without ACT with a minimum 2-year follow-up after graduation were enrolled. According to the intervention for the apex, patients were further divided into the TDGR group, the TDGR + apical control pedicle screws group (without apical fusion), and the TDGR + hybrid technique group. Clinical outcomes, radiological parameters, pulmonary function, and complications were compared among the 3 groups.
RESULTS
A total of 76 patients (51 patients in the TDGR group, 10 patients in the apical control pedicle screws group, and 15 patients in the hybrid technique group) were enrolled. Compared with TDGR, TDGR + ACT achieved better main curve correction, better control of apical vertebral translation and rotation, and lower incidence of complications and revision surgery (P < .05) while maintaining development of the spine and chest. Although the difference was not significant, patients in the TDGR + ACT group had better pulmonary function at the last follow-up (P > .05). The percentage of patients receiving final fusion in the TDGR + ACT group was significantly lower than that in the TDGR group (P < .05).
CONCLUSION
Compared with TDGR, TDGR + ACT can achieve better curve correction and apical control and comparable clinical outcomes while maintaining the growth of the spine and chest. Patients may derive more benefits from treatment with TDGR + ACT, including a lower incidence of mechanical complications and revision surgery, better pulmonary function, and the avoidance of final fusion.
期刊介绍:
Neurosurgery, the official journal of the Congress of Neurological Surgeons, publishes research on clinical and experimental neurosurgery covering the very latest developments in science, technology, and medicine. For professionals aware of the rapid pace of developments in the field, this journal is nothing short of indispensable as the most complete window on the contemporary field of neurosurgery.
Neurosurgery is the fastest-growing journal in the field, with a worldwide reputation for reliable coverage delivered with a fresh and dynamic outlook.