The Approach to Pseudarthrosis After Adult Spinal Deformity Surgery: Is a Multiple-Rod Construct Necessary?

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective study. OBJECTIVES: Our goal was to evaluate the rate of rod fracture and persistent pseudarthrosis in cohorts of patients treated with a dual rod or multiple-rod construct in revision surgery for pseudarthrosis. METHODS: A dual rod construct was used in 23 patients, and a multiple rod construct in 24 patients, spanning the pseudarthrosis level. Two-year fusion grading, and rates of pseudarthrosis and implant failure, were assessed. RESULTS: There were no differences in patient or surgical characteristics between the groups: (2- rod construct: Age 60 ± 14, Levels 10 ± 5, 3-column osteotomy:17%; multiple-rod construct: Age: 62 ± 11, Levels 9 ± 4, 3-column osteotomy:30%). Patients in the multiple rod construct were transfused a greater volume of packed red blood cells (pRBCs) intraoperatively (2.6 ± 2.9 vs. 1.1 ± 1.5 U, p < 0.0001). At 2 year follow up there was no difference in fusion grades at the previous level of pseudarthrosis, the rate of rod fracture or pseudarthrosis between the 2 groups, or rate of reoperation for pseudarthrosis, rod fracture, wound infection, hardware prominence, or PJK/PJF. CONCLUSIONS: Our data demonstrate no difference in fusion grade, or rates of rod fracture and revision at 2 years, after utilizing a dual rod versus multiple rod construct in revision surgery for pseudarthrosis. The low complication rates seen with either configuration warrant further investigation of the optimal instrumentation configuration.