Cargando…

Comparative Analysis of Combined (First Anterior, Then Posterior) Versus Only Posterior Approach for Treating Severe Scoliosis: A Mean Follow Up of 8.5 Years

STUDY DESIGN. A retrospective, one center, institutional review board approved study. OBJECTIVE. Two methods of operative treatments were compared in order to evaluate whether a two-stage approach is justified for correction of bigger idiopathic scoliosis curves. Two stage surgery, combined anterior...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Hero, Nikša, Vengust, Rok, Topolovec, Matevž
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5427990/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28125525
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000002059
_version_ 1783235736747638784
author Hero, Nikša
Vengust, Rok
Topolovec, Matevž
author_facet Hero, Nikša
Vengust, Rok
Topolovec, Matevž
author_sort Hero, Nikša
collection PubMed
description STUDY DESIGN. A retrospective, one center, institutional review board approved study. OBJECTIVE. Two methods of operative treatments were compared in order to evaluate whether a two-stage approach is justified for correction of bigger idiopathic scoliosis curves. Two stage surgery, combined anterior approach in first operation and posterior instrumentation and correction in the second operation. One stage surgery included only posterior instrumentation and correction. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA. Studies comparing two-stage approach and only posterior approach are rather scarce, with shorter follow up and lack of clinical data. METHODS. Three hundred forty eight patients with idiopathic scoliosis were operated using Cotrel–Dubousset (CD) hybrid instrumentation with pedicle screw and hooks. Only patients with curvatures more than or equal to 61° were analyzed and divided in two groups: two stage surgery (N = 30) and one stage surgery (N = 46). The radiographic parameters as well as duration of operation, hospitalization time, and number of segments included in fusion and clinical outcome were analyzed. RESULTS. No statistically significant difference was observed in correction between two-stage group (average correction 69%) and only posterior approach group (average correction 66%). However, there were statistically significant differences regarding hospitalization time, duration of the surgery, and the number of instrumented segments. CONCLUSION. Two-stage surgery has only a limited advantage in terms of postoperative correction angle compared with the posterior approach. Posterior instrumentation and correction is satisfactory, especially taking into account that the patient is subjected to only one surgery. Level of Evidence: 3
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5427990
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher Lippincott Williams & Wilkins
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-54279902017-05-23 Comparative Analysis of Combined (First Anterior, Then Posterior) Versus Only Posterior Approach for Treating Severe Scoliosis: A Mean Follow Up of 8.5 Years Hero, Nikša Vengust, Rok Topolovec, Matevž Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Deformity STUDY DESIGN. A retrospective, one center, institutional review board approved study. OBJECTIVE. Two methods of operative treatments were compared in order to evaluate whether a two-stage approach is justified for correction of bigger idiopathic scoliosis curves. Two stage surgery, combined anterior approach in first operation and posterior instrumentation and correction in the second operation. One stage surgery included only posterior instrumentation and correction. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA. Studies comparing two-stage approach and only posterior approach are rather scarce, with shorter follow up and lack of clinical data. METHODS. Three hundred forty eight patients with idiopathic scoliosis were operated using Cotrel–Dubousset (CD) hybrid instrumentation with pedicle screw and hooks. Only patients with curvatures more than or equal to 61° were analyzed and divided in two groups: two stage surgery (N = 30) and one stage surgery (N = 46). The radiographic parameters as well as duration of operation, hospitalization time, and number of segments included in fusion and clinical outcome were analyzed. RESULTS. No statistically significant difference was observed in correction between two-stage group (average correction 69%) and only posterior approach group (average correction 66%). However, there were statistically significant differences regarding hospitalization time, duration of the surgery, and the number of instrumented segments. CONCLUSION. Two-stage surgery has only a limited advantage in terms of postoperative correction angle compared with the posterior approach. Posterior instrumentation and correction is satisfactory, especially taking into account that the patient is subjected to only one surgery. Level of Evidence: 3 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins 2017-06-01 2017-05-24 /pmc/articles/PMC5427990/ /pubmed/28125525 http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000002059 Text en Copyright © 2017 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0 This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-No Derivatives License 4.0 (CCBY-NC-ND), where it is permissible to download and share the work provided it is properly cited. The work cannot be changed in any way or used commercially without permission from the journal. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0
spellingShingle Deformity
Hero, Nikša
Vengust, Rok
Topolovec, Matevž
Comparative Analysis of Combined (First Anterior, Then Posterior) Versus Only Posterior Approach for Treating Severe Scoliosis: A Mean Follow Up of 8.5 Years
title Comparative Analysis of Combined (First Anterior, Then Posterior) Versus Only Posterior Approach for Treating Severe Scoliosis: A Mean Follow Up of 8.5 Years
title_full Comparative Analysis of Combined (First Anterior, Then Posterior) Versus Only Posterior Approach for Treating Severe Scoliosis: A Mean Follow Up of 8.5 Years
title_fullStr Comparative Analysis of Combined (First Anterior, Then Posterior) Versus Only Posterior Approach for Treating Severe Scoliosis: A Mean Follow Up of 8.5 Years
title_full_unstemmed Comparative Analysis of Combined (First Anterior, Then Posterior) Versus Only Posterior Approach for Treating Severe Scoliosis: A Mean Follow Up of 8.5 Years
title_short Comparative Analysis of Combined (First Anterior, Then Posterior) Versus Only Posterior Approach for Treating Severe Scoliosis: A Mean Follow Up of 8.5 Years
title_sort comparative analysis of combined (first anterior, then posterior) versus only posterior approach for treating severe scoliosis: a mean follow up of 8.5 years
topic Deformity
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5427990/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28125525
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000002059
work_keys_str_mv AT heroniksa comparativeanalysisofcombinedfirstanteriorthenposteriorversusonlyposteriorapproachfortreatingseverescoliosisameanfollowupof85years
AT vengustrok comparativeanalysisofcombinedfirstanteriorthenposteriorversusonlyposteriorapproachfortreatingseverescoliosisameanfollowupof85years
AT topolovecmatevz comparativeanalysisofcombinedfirstanteriorthenposteriorversusonlyposteriorapproachfortreatingseverescoliosisameanfollowupof85years