LIV selection in 'tweener' patients treated with magnetically controlled growing rods vs. posterior spinal fusion.

IF 1.6 Q3 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY Spine deformity Pub Date : 2024-12-15 DOI:10.1007/s43390-024-01019-2

Brandon Yoshida, Claudia Leonardi, Jacquelyn Valenzuela-Moss, Lindsay M Andras, Tyler A Tetreault, John B Emans, John T Smith, Joshua M Pahys, G Ying Li, Michael J Heffernan

{"title":"LIV selection in 'tweener' patients treated with magnetically controlled growing rods vs. posterior spinal fusion.","authors":"Brandon Yoshida, Claudia Leonardi, Jacquelyn Valenzuela-Moss, Lindsay M Andras, Tyler A Tetreault, John B Emans, John T Smith, Joshua M Pahys, G Ying Li, Michael J Heffernan","doi":"10.1007/s43390-024-01019-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Purpose: The purpose of this study was to compare the LIV selection in 'tweener' patients treated with MCGR or PSF.Methods: A multicenter pediatric spine database was queried for ambulatory patients ages 8-11 years treated by MCGR or PSF with at least 2-year follow-up. The relationship between the LIV and preoperative spinal height, curve magnitude, and implant type were assessed. The relationship between the touched vertebrae (TV), the last substantially touched vertebrae (LSTV), the stable vertebrae (SV), and the LIV were evaluated.Results: One hundred and fifty-nine patients met inclusion criteria. Preoperative curve magnitude was similar between groups (MCGR 68 ± 19.0° vs. PSF 66 ± 17.2°, p = 0.6). Preoperative curve magnitude was associated with LIV, as larger curves were associated with a more caudal LIV (p = 0.0004). Distribution of the LIV was more varied in PSF compared to MCGR. L3 was the LIV in 43% of MCGR patients compared to 27% of PSF patients. A thoracic LIV was more common in the PSF group (PSF 13% vs. MCGR 1.2%, p = 0.0038). The LIV was cephalad to the SV in 68% of PSF compared to 48% of MCGR patients (p = 0.02).Conclusion: The majority of LIV selection in 'tweener' patients was at L3 or below regardless of surgical strategy, likely driven by curve magnitude. However, 'tweener' patients treated with PSF had more cephalad LIV selections compared to patients treated with MCGR. Potential LIV differences should be considered when selecting MCGR vs. PSF in 'tweener' patients.Level of evidence: III.","PeriodicalId":21796,"journal":{"name":"Spine deformity","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Spine deformity","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s43390-024-01019-2","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to compare the LIV selection in 'tweener' patients treated with MCGR or PSF.

Methods: A multicenter pediatric spine database was queried for ambulatory patients ages 8-11 years treated by MCGR or PSF with at least 2-year follow-up. The relationship between the LIV and preoperative spinal height, curve magnitude, and implant type were assessed. The relationship between the touched vertebrae (TV), the last substantially touched vertebrae (LSTV), the stable vertebrae (SV), and the LIV were evaluated.

Results: One hundred and fifty-nine patients met inclusion criteria. Preoperative curve magnitude was similar between groups (MCGR 68 ± 19.0° vs. PSF 66 ± 17.2°, p = 0.6). Preoperative curve magnitude was associated with LIV, as larger curves were associated with a more caudal LIV (p = 0.0004). Distribution of the LIV was more varied in PSF compared to MCGR. L3 was the LIV in 43% of MCGR patients compared to 27% of PSF patients. A thoracic LIV was more common in the PSF group (PSF 13% vs. MCGR 1.2%, p = 0.0038). The LIV was cephalad to the SV in 68% of PSF compared to 48% of MCGR patients (p = 0.02).

Conclusion: The majority of LIV selection in 'tweener' patients was at L3 or below regardless of surgical strategy, likely driven by curve magnitude. However, 'tweener' patients treated with PSF had more cephalad LIV selections compared to patients treated with MCGR. Potential LIV differences should be considered when selecting MCGR vs. PSF in 'tweener' patients.

Level of evidence: III.

查看原文

微信好友朋友圈 QQ好友复制链接

本刊更多论文

采用磁控生长棒与脊柱后路融合术治疗的 "两岁 "患者的 LIV 选择。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文去求助

来源期刊

Spine deformity

CiteScore

3.20

自引率

18.80%

发文量

167

期刊介绍： Spine Deformity the official journal of the?Scoliosis Research Society is a peer-refereed publication to disseminate knowledge on basic science and clinical research into the?etiology?biomechanics?treatment?methods and outcomes of all types of?spinal deformities. The international members of the Editorial Board provide a worldwide perspective for the journal's area of interest.The?journal?will enhance the mission of the Society which is to foster the optimal care of all patients with?spine?deformities worldwide. Articles published in?Spine Deformity?are Medline indexed in PubMed.? The journal publishes original articles in the form of clinical and basic research. Spine Deformity will only publish studies that have institutional review board (IRB) or similar ethics committee approval for human and animal studies and have strictly observed these guidelines. The minimum follow-up period for follow-up clinical studies is 24 months.