Cargando…

Comparison of treatment outcomes between growth-sparing instrumentation and definitive one-stage fusion for EOS patients ages 6–10 years

PURPOSE: To compare objective outcomes for EOS patients age 6–10 years treated by growth-sparing (GS) surgery or definitive one-stage correction and fusion (DF). METHODS: We reviewed surgical, radiographic, PFT’s, and EOSQ-24 outcomes for EOS patients > age 6 at index surgery treated at a single...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Johnston, Charles E., Thornberg, David C., Palmer, Robert
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer International Publishing 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10587013/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37480508
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s43390-023-00731-9
_version_ 1785123266636021760
author Johnston, Charles E.
Thornberg, David C.
Palmer, Robert
author_facet Johnston, Charles E.
Thornberg, David C.
Palmer, Robert
author_sort Johnston, Charles E.
collection PubMed
description PURPOSE: To compare objective outcomes for EOS patients age 6–10 years treated by growth-sparing (GS) surgery or definitive one-stage correction and fusion (DF). METHODS: We reviewed surgical, radiographic, PFT’s, and EOSQ-24 outcomes for EOS patients > age 6 at index surgery treated at a single institution, minimum 2-year follow-up. Neuromuscular diagnoses were excluded. RESULTS: 47 patients underwent index surgery between age 6 and 10.9 years. Twenty-one had DF, 26 had GS surgery (13 MCGR, 13 TGR). Diagnoses included 15 congenital, 15 idiopathic, 17 syndromic. Age at index was 9.1 years DF, 7.8 GS (p < .001). Follow-up was 63–78 months. 18/26 GS cases converted to DF, 13 due to complications, which occurred in 8/21 DF cases vs 19/26 GS (p = .016). DF patients had fewer post-index surgeries (0.6 vs 3.7, p < .001). At follow-up there were no differences in curve magnitudes, %correction, T1–12/T1-S1 segment lengths, EOSQ-24 scores or PFTs. 18 patients converting to DF after initial GS had equal outcomes as DF initially. 31 patients > age 8 at index (“tweeners”) were studied separately. 13 had GS surgery (7 MCGR), 18 had DF. At > 60 months follow-up, curve magnitudes, spine lengths, PFT’s, or EOSQ scores were equivalent. DF patients had fewer procedures and complications. CONCLUSION: For patients age 6–10.9 years, outcomes were no different at > 5 year follow-up between DF and GS groups. DF patients had fewer total surgeries and complications. Equal outcomes also occurred for tweeners. As a result, GS treatment does not appear to benefit patients > age 8.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10587013
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher Springer International Publishing
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-105870132023-10-21 Comparison of treatment outcomes between growth-sparing instrumentation and definitive one-stage fusion for EOS patients ages 6–10 years Johnston, Charles E. Thornberg, David C. Palmer, Robert Spine Deform Case Series PURPOSE: To compare objective outcomes for EOS patients age 6–10 years treated by growth-sparing (GS) surgery or definitive one-stage correction and fusion (DF). METHODS: We reviewed surgical, radiographic, PFT’s, and EOSQ-24 outcomes for EOS patients > age 6 at index surgery treated at a single institution, minimum 2-year follow-up. Neuromuscular diagnoses were excluded. RESULTS: 47 patients underwent index surgery between age 6 and 10.9 years. Twenty-one had DF, 26 had GS surgery (13 MCGR, 13 TGR). Diagnoses included 15 congenital, 15 idiopathic, 17 syndromic. Age at index was 9.1 years DF, 7.8 GS (p < .001). Follow-up was 63–78 months. 18/26 GS cases converted to DF, 13 due to complications, which occurred in 8/21 DF cases vs 19/26 GS (p = .016). DF patients had fewer post-index surgeries (0.6 vs 3.7, p < .001). At follow-up there were no differences in curve magnitudes, %correction, T1–12/T1-S1 segment lengths, EOSQ-24 scores or PFTs. 18 patients converting to DF after initial GS had equal outcomes as DF initially. 31 patients > age 8 at index (“tweeners”) were studied separately. 13 had GS surgery (7 MCGR), 18 had DF. At > 60 months follow-up, curve magnitudes, spine lengths, PFT’s, or EOSQ scores were equivalent. DF patients had fewer procedures and complications. CONCLUSION: For patients age 6–10.9 years, outcomes were no different at > 5 year follow-up between DF and GS groups. DF patients had fewer total surgeries and complications. Equal outcomes also occurred for tweeners. As a result, GS treatment does not appear to benefit patients > age 8. Springer International Publishing 2023-07-22 2023 /pmc/articles/PMC10587013/ /pubmed/37480508 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s43390-023-00731-9 Text en © The Author(s) 2023 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Case Series
Johnston, Charles E.
Thornberg, David C.
Palmer, Robert
Comparison of treatment outcomes between growth-sparing instrumentation and definitive one-stage fusion for EOS patients ages 6–10 years
title Comparison of treatment outcomes between growth-sparing instrumentation and definitive one-stage fusion for EOS patients ages 6–10 years
title_full Comparison of treatment outcomes between growth-sparing instrumentation and definitive one-stage fusion for EOS patients ages 6–10 years
title_fullStr Comparison of treatment outcomes between growth-sparing instrumentation and definitive one-stage fusion for EOS patients ages 6–10 years
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of treatment outcomes between growth-sparing instrumentation and definitive one-stage fusion for EOS patients ages 6–10 years
title_short Comparison of treatment outcomes between growth-sparing instrumentation and definitive one-stage fusion for EOS patients ages 6–10 years
title_sort comparison of treatment outcomes between growth-sparing instrumentation and definitive one-stage fusion for eos patients ages 6–10 years
topic Case Series
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10587013/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37480508
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s43390-023-00731-9
work_keys_str_mv AT johnstoncharlese comparisonoftreatmentoutcomesbetweengrowthsparinginstrumentationanddefinitiveonestagefusionforeospatientsages610years
AT thornbergdavidc comparisonoftreatmentoutcomesbetweengrowthsparinginstrumentationanddefinitiveonestagefusionforeospatientsages610years
AT palmerrobert comparisonoftreatmentoutcomesbetweengrowthsparinginstrumentationanddefinitiveonestagefusionforeospatientsages610years