Cargando…

FUNCTIONAL AND RADIOGRAPHIC COMPARISON OF ANTERIOR AND POSTERIOR INSTRUMENTATION FOR THE CORRECTION OF ADOLESCENT IDIOPATHIC SCOLIOSIS

Objective: This was a retrospective study to compare the anterior instrumentation (AI) and posterior instrumentation (PI) results among patients diagnosed with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (Lenke type I) who were treated surgically. Methods: The results from 24 patients aged 11 to 18 years with L...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Vieira, Juliano Silveira, da Silva Herrero, Carlos Fernando Pereira, Porto, Maximiliano Aguiar, Arlet, Vincent, Defino, Helton Luiz Aparecido
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Elsevier 2015
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4799174/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27026964
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S2255-4971(15)30303-7
Descripción
Sumario:Objective: This was a retrospective study to compare the anterior instrumentation (AI) and posterior instrumentation (PI) results among patients diagnosed with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (Lenke type I) who were treated surgically. Methods: The results from 24 patients aged 11 to 18 years with Lenke type I idiopathic scoliosis who underwent surgery with AI (12 patients) or PI (12 patients) were compared. All the patients were operated by the same surgeon and were followed up for a minimum period of five years. The variables for comparison included: coronal and sagittal correction, distance from apical vertebra to midline, apical vertebral rotation, number of instrumented vertebrae and functional variables (by means of the SRS-22 questionnaire). The data obtained were analyzed using the SAS software, version 9. The two groups were compared using Student's t-test with a significance level of 5% (0.05). Results: The correction of the curve in the frontal plane was higher in the group of patients with the anterior approach, in the immediate (p=0.031) and late (p=0.043) postoperative periods, as was the apical vertebral rotation during the immediate (p=0.002) and late (p=0.019) evaluations. The number of instrumented vertebrae was 7.69 ± 1.38 in the AI group and 11.38 ± 2.92 in the PI group (p = 0.021). Functional assessment (SRS-22) did not show any significant difference (p > 0.05) between the groups. Conclusion: The patients who underwent scoliosis correction with AI presented greater correction in the frontal plane, greater derotation of apical vertebrae and a smaller number of fused vertebrae.