Abel De Varona-Cocero, Fares Ani, Nathan Kim, Djani Robertson, Camryn Myers, Kimberly Ashayeri, Constance Maglaras, Themistocles Protopsaltis, Juan C Rodriguez-Olaverri
{"title":"青少年特发性脊柱侧凸的2排椎体固定与后路脊柱融合术中L5倾斜矫正。","authors":"Abel De Varona-Cocero, Fares Ani, Nathan Kim, Djani Robertson, Camryn Myers, Kimberly Ashayeri, Constance Maglaras, Themistocles Protopsaltis, Juan C Rodriguez-Olaverri","doi":"10.1097/BSD.0000000000001697","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Study design: </strong>Single-center retrospective cohort study.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To compare the correction of fractional curve and L5 tilt in 2RVBT versus PSF with LIV in the lumbar spine.</p><p><strong>Summary of background data: </strong>Vertebral body tethering, an AIS fusion-alternative, avoids rigid constructs, allowing for lower instrumented vertebra (LIV) selection. Single-tether constructs break, but mini-open thoracoscopic assistant double-row vertebral body tethering (2RVBT) reduces this. Limited comparative studies exist with posterior spinal fusion (PSF).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Retrospective analysis of AIS correction surgeries with lumbar LIV using preoperative and minimum 2-year postoperative imaging. Patients were divided into 2RVBT or PSF groups. Data included age, Riser, UIV, LIV, instrumented levels, and revision rates. Radiographic analyses included preoperative and postoperative main curve Cobb (MCC), secondary curve Cobb (SCC), fractional curve Cobb (FCC), and L5 tilt.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Ninety-nine patients participated (49 in 2RVBT, 50 in PSF). Preoperatively, secondary CC differed significantly (2RVBT: 44.6±10.4 degrees vs. PSF: 39.5±11.8 degrees, P=0.026), but not L5 tilt, MCC, or FCC. Postoperatively, MCC (2RVBT: 25.7±12.3 degrees vs. PSF: 19.5±7.4 degrees, P=0.003) and SCC (2RVBT: 18.0±8.4 degrees vs. PSF: 14.5±6.6 degrees, P=0.012) varied. Preoperative to postoperative changes in MCC (2RVBT: -32.0±11.3 degrees vs. PSF: -37.2±13.3 degrees, P=0.044) and L5 tilt (-13.8±9.0 degrees vs. PSF: -8.1±6.8 degrees, P=0.001) differed. Revision rates were similar (2RVBT: 2.0%, PSF: 4.0%, P=0.57). In 2RVBT, 3 tethers broke, 1 revision occurred for a broken tether, and 1 pleural effusion needed thoracocentesis. In PSF, 1 superficial infection needed surgery, and 1 revision was for add-on phenomenon. After PSM for Lenke classification, 54 patients remained (27 in each group). At 2 years, 2RVBT showed less MCC correction (-30.8±11.8 degrees vs. -38.9±11.9 degrees, P=0.017), but greater L5 tilt correction (-14.6±10.0 degrees vs. -7.5±6.0 degrees, P=0.003).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This study with a minimum 2-year radiographic follow-up demonstrates that 2RVBT results in greater L5 tilt correction when compared with posterior spinal fusion after PSM for Lenke classification and similar rates of revision surgery.</p><p><strong>Level of evidence: </strong>Level III.</p>","PeriodicalId":10457,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Spine Surgery","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Correction of L5 Tilt in 2-Row Vertebral Body Tethering Versus Posterior Spinal Fusion for Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis.\",\"authors\":\"Abel De Varona-Cocero, Fares Ani, Nathan Kim, Djani Robertson, Camryn Myers, Kimberly Ashayeri, Constance Maglaras, Themistocles Protopsaltis, Juan C Rodriguez-Olaverri\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/BSD.0000000000001697\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Study design: </strong>Single-center retrospective cohort study.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To compare the correction of fractional curve and L5 tilt in 2RVBT versus PSF with LIV in the lumbar spine.</p><p><strong>Summary of background data: </strong>Vertebral body tethering, an AIS fusion-alternative, avoids rigid constructs, allowing for lower instrumented vertebra (LIV) selection. Single-tether constructs break, but mini-open thoracoscopic assistant double-row vertebral body tethering (2RVBT) reduces this. Limited comparative studies exist with posterior spinal fusion (PSF).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Retrospective analysis of AIS correction surgeries with lumbar LIV using preoperative and minimum 2-year postoperative imaging. Patients were divided into 2RVBT or PSF groups. Data included age, Riser, UIV, LIV, instrumented levels, and revision rates. Radiographic analyses included preoperative and postoperative main curve Cobb (MCC), secondary curve Cobb (SCC), fractional curve Cobb (FCC), and L5 tilt.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Ninety-nine patients participated (49 in 2RVBT, 50 in PSF). Preoperatively, secondary CC differed significantly (2RVBT: 44.6±10.4 degrees vs. PSF: 39.5±11.8 degrees, P=0.026), but not L5 tilt, MCC, or FCC. Postoperatively, MCC (2RVBT: 25.7±12.3 degrees vs. PSF: 19.5±7.4 degrees, P=0.003) and SCC (2RVBT: 18.0±8.4 degrees vs. PSF: 14.5±6.6 degrees, P=0.012) varied. Preoperative to postoperative changes in MCC (2RVBT: -32.0±11.3 degrees vs. PSF: -37.2±13.3 degrees, P=0.044) and L5 tilt (-13.8±9.0 degrees vs. PSF: -8.1±6.8 degrees, P=0.001) differed. Revision rates were similar (2RVBT: 2.0%, PSF: 4.0%, P=0.57). In 2RVBT, 3 tethers broke, 1 revision occurred for a broken tether, and 1 pleural effusion needed thoracocentesis. In PSF, 1 superficial infection needed surgery, and 1 revision was for add-on phenomenon. After PSM for Lenke classification, 54 patients remained (27 in each group). At 2 years, 2RVBT showed less MCC correction (-30.8±11.8 degrees vs. -38.9±11.9 degrees, P=0.017), but greater L5 tilt correction (-14.6±10.0 degrees vs. -7.5±6.0 degrees, P=0.003).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This study with a minimum 2-year radiographic follow-up demonstrates that 2RVBT results in greater L5 tilt correction when compared with posterior spinal fusion after PSM for Lenke classification and similar rates of revision surgery.</p><p><strong>Level of evidence: </strong>Level III.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":10457,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinical Spine Surgery\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Clinical Spine Surgery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/BSD.0000000000001697\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Spine Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/BSD.0000000000001697","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Correction of L5 Tilt in 2-Row Vertebral Body Tethering Versus Posterior Spinal Fusion for Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis.
Study design: Single-center retrospective cohort study.
Objective: To compare the correction of fractional curve and L5 tilt in 2RVBT versus PSF with LIV in the lumbar spine.
Summary of background data: Vertebral body tethering, an AIS fusion-alternative, avoids rigid constructs, allowing for lower instrumented vertebra (LIV) selection. Single-tether constructs break, but mini-open thoracoscopic assistant double-row vertebral body tethering (2RVBT) reduces this. Limited comparative studies exist with posterior spinal fusion (PSF).
Methods: Retrospective analysis of AIS correction surgeries with lumbar LIV using preoperative and minimum 2-year postoperative imaging. Patients were divided into 2RVBT or PSF groups. Data included age, Riser, UIV, LIV, instrumented levels, and revision rates. Radiographic analyses included preoperative and postoperative main curve Cobb (MCC), secondary curve Cobb (SCC), fractional curve Cobb (FCC), and L5 tilt.
Results: Ninety-nine patients participated (49 in 2RVBT, 50 in PSF). Preoperatively, secondary CC differed significantly (2RVBT: 44.6±10.4 degrees vs. PSF: 39.5±11.8 degrees, P=0.026), but not L5 tilt, MCC, or FCC. Postoperatively, MCC (2RVBT: 25.7±12.3 degrees vs. PSF: 19.5±7.4 degrees, P=0.003) and SCC (2RVBT: 18.0±8.4 degrees vs. PSF: 14.5±6.6 degrees, P=0.012) varied. Preoperative to postoperative changes in MCC (2RVBT: -32.0±11.3 degrees vs. PSF: -37.2±13.3 degrees, P=0.044) and L5 tilt (-13.8±9.0 degrees vs. PSF: -8.1±6.8 degrees, P=0.001) differed. Revision rates were similar (2RVBT: 2.0%, PSF: 4.0%, P=0.57). In 2RVBT, 3 tethers broke, 1 revision occurred for a broken tether, and 1 pleural effusion needed thoracocentesis. In PSF, 1 superficial infection needed surgery, and 1 revision was for add-on phenomenon. After PSM for Lenke classification, 54 patients remained (27 in each group). At 2 years, 2RVBT showed less MCC correction (-30.8±11.8 degrees vs. -38.9±11.9 degrees, P=0.017), but greater L5 tilt correction (-14.6±10.0 degrees vs. -7.5±6.0 degrees, P=0.003).
Conclusions: This study with a minimum 2-year radiographic follow-up demonstrates that 2RVBT results in greater L5 tilt correction when compared with posterior spinal fusion after PSM for Lenke classification and similar rates of revision surgery.
期刊介绍：
Clinical Spine Surgery is the ideal journal for the busy practicing spine surgeon or trainee, as it is the only journal necessary to keep up to date with new clinical research and surgical techniques. Readers get to watch leaders in the field debate controversial topics in a new controversies section, and gain access to evidence-based reviews of important pathologies in the systematic reviews section. The journal features a surgical technique complete with a video, and a tips and tricks section that allows surgeons to review the important steps prior to a complex procedure.
Clinical Spine Surgery provides readers with primary research studies, specifically level 1, 2 and 3 studies, ensuring that articles that may actually change a surgeon’s practice will be read and published. Each issue includes a brief article that will help a surgeon better understand the business of healthcare, as well as an article that will help a surgeon understand how to interpret increasingly complex research methodology. Clinical Spine Surgery is your single source for up-to-date, evidence-based recommendations for spine care.
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
分享
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
扫码关注我们
