Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Scoliosis in Duchenne’s muscular dystrophy: a changing trend in surgical management

A historical surgical outcome study comparing sublaminar, hybrid and pedicle screw instrumentation systems

  • Original Article
  • Published:
European Spine Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

A non-randomised retrospective study to compare the results of surgical correction of scoliosis in Duchenne’s muscular dystrophy (DMD) patients using three different instrumentation systems—Sublaminar instrumentation system (Group A), a hybrid of sublaminar and pedicle screw systems (Group B) and pedicle screw system alone (Group C). Between 1993 and 2003, 43 patients with DMD underwent posterior spinal fusion and instrumentation. Group A (n = 19) had sublaminar instrumentation system, Group B (n = 13) had a hybrid construct and Group C (n = 11) was treated with pedicle system. The mean blood loss in Group A was 4.1 l, 3.2 l in Group B and 2.5 l in Group C. Average operating times in Group A, B and C were 300, 274 and 234 min, respectively. Mean pre-operative, post-operative and final Cobb angle in Group A was 50.05 ± 15.46°, 15.68 ± 11.23° and 21.57 ± 11.63°, Group B was 17.76 ± 8.50°, 3.61 ± 2.53° and 6.69 ± 4.19° and Group C was 25.81 ± 9.94°, 5.45 ± 3.88°, 8.90 ± 5.82°, respectively. Flexibility index or the potential correction calculated from bending radiographs were 60 ± 6.33, 70 ± 4.65 and 67 ± 6.79% for Group A, Group B and Group C respectively. The percentage correction achieved was 72.5 ± 14.5% in Group A, 82 ± 6% in Group B and 82 ± 8% in Group C. The difference between percentage correction achieved and the flexibility index was 12.45 ± 8.22, 12.05 ± 1.3 and 15.00 ± 1.21% in Group A, B and C, respectively The percentage loss of correction in Cobb angles at final follow-up in Group A, B and C was 12.5 ± 3.5, 16.5 ± 1. and 12.5 ± 2.5%, respectively. Complications seen in Group A were three cases of wound infection and two cases of implant failure; Group B had a single case of implant failure and Group C had one patient with wound infection and one case with a partial screw pull out. Early surgery and smaller curve corrections appears to be the current trend in the management of scoliosis in DMD. This has been possible due to early curve detection and surgery thus having the advantage of less post-operative respiratory complications and stay in paediatric intensive care. Also, early surgery avoids development of pelvic deformity and extension of instrumentation to the pelvis thereby reducing blood loss. This trend reflects the advent of newer and safer instrumentation systems, advanced techniques in anaesthesia and cord monitoring. Sublaminar instrumentation system group had increased operating times and blood loss compared to both the hybrid and pedicle screw instrumentation systems due to increased bleeding from epidural vessels and pelvic instrumentation. Overall, the three instrumentation constructs appear to provide and maintain an optimal degree of correction at medium to long term follow up but the advantages of lesser blood loss and surgical time without the need for pelvic fixation seem to swing the verdict in favour of the pedicle screw system.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Kinali M, Messina S, Mercuri E et al (2006) Management of scoliosis in Duchenne muscular dystrophy: a large 10-year retrospective study. Dev Med Child Neurol 48(6):513–518

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Chataigner H, Grelet V, Onimus M (1998) Surgery of the spine in Duchenne’s muscular dystrophy. Rev Chir Orthop Reparatrice Appar Mot 84(3):224–230

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Cervellati S, Bettini N, Moscato M, Gusella A, Dema E, Maresi R (2004) Surgical treatment of spinal deformities in Duchenne muscular dystrophy: a long term follow-up study. Eur Spine J 13(5):441–448

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Gayet LE, Duport G, Pries P (1999) Flexible and semi-early vertebral instrumentation in surgical treatment of Duchenne muscular dystrophy scoliosis. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol 9(4):223–231

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Mehta KS, Gibson MJ (2003) The treatment of neuromuscular scoliosis. Curr Orthop 17(4):313–321

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Rideau Y, Glorion B, Delaubier A, Tarlé O, Bach J (1984) The treatment of scoliosis in Duchenne muscular dystrophy. Muscle Nerve 7(4):281–286

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Sussman MD (1984) Advantage of early spinal stabilization and fusion in patients with Duchenne muscular dystrophy. J Pediatr Orthop 4:532–537

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Forst R, Forst J, Heller KD, Hengstler K (1997) Characteristics in the treatment of scoliosis in muscular diseases. Z Orthop Ihre Grenzgeb 135(2):95–105

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Hopf C, Forst R, Forst J, Eysel P, Reitter B (1994) Multi-segmental fusion of scoliosis in Duchenne’s muscular dystrophy. Z Orthop Ihre Grenzgeb 132(5):377–382

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Bonnett C, Brown JC, Perry J et al (1975) Evolution of treatment of paralytic scoliosis in Rancho Los Amigos hospital. J Bone Joint Surg Am 57:206–215

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Harrington PR (1962) Treatment of scoliosis correction and internal fixation by spine instrumentation. J Bone Joint Surg Am 44:591–634

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Luque ER (1982) Segmental spinal instrumentation. Clin Orthop Relat Res 163:192–198

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Mehdian H, Eisenstein S (1989) Segmental spinal instrumentation using short closed wire loops. Clin Orthop Relat Res 247:90–96

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Mehdian H, Shimizu N, Draycott V (1989) Spinal stabilization for scoliosis in Duchenne muscular dystrophy: experience with various sublaminar instrumentation system. Neuro-Orthopedics 7:74–82

    Google Scholar 

  15. Mubarak SJ, Morin WD, Leach J (1993) Spinal fusion in Duchenne muscular dystrophy: fixation and fusion to the sacropelvis? J Pediatr Orthop 13:752–757

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Alman BA, Kim HK (1999) Pelvic obliquity after fusion of the spine in Duchenne muscular dystrophy. J Bone Joint Surg Br 81:821–824

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Sengupta DK, Mehdian SH, McConnell JR, Eisenstein SM, Webb JK (2002) Pelvic or lumbar fixation for the surgical management of scoliosis in Duchenne muscular dystrophy. Spine 27(18):2072–2079

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Galasko CS, Delaney C, Morris P (1992) Spinal stabilisation in Duchenne muscular dystrophy. J Bone Joint Surg Br 74-B:210–214

    Google Scholar 

  19. Galasko CS, Williamson JB, Delaney CM (1995) Lung function in Duchenne muscular dystrophy. Eur Spine J 4(5):263–267

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Kennedy JD, Staples AJ, Brook PD et al (1995) Effect of spinal surgery on lung function in Duchenne muscular dystrophy. Thorax 50(11):1173–1178

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Herndon WA, Sullivan JA, Yngve DA, Gross RH, Dreher G (1987) Segmental spinal instrumentation with sublaminar wires. A critical appraisal. J Bone Joint Surg Am 69:851–859

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Gurr KR, McAfee PC (1988) Cotrel-Dubousset instrumentation in adults. A preliminary report. Spine 13(5):510–520

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Hitchon PW, Brenton MD, Black AG et al (2003) In vitro biomechanical comparison of pedicle screws, sublaminar hooks, and sublaminar cables. J Neurosurg 99(1 Suppl):104–109

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Rosner MK, Polly DW, Kuklo TR, Ondra SL (2003) Thoracic pedicle screw fixation for spinal deformity. Neurosurg Focus 14(1):e7

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Kim YJ, Lenke LG, Kim J et al (2006) Comparative analysis of pedicle screw versus hybrid instrumentation in posterior spinal fusion of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Spine 31(3):291–298

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Suk SI, Kim WJ, Lee SM, Kim JH, Chung ER (2001) Thoracic pedicle screw fixation in spinal deformities: are they really safe? Spine 26(18):2049–2057

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Suk SI, Kim WJ (2004) Biomechanics in posterior spinal instrumentation in biomechanics and biomaterials, Chapter 43. In: Poitout DG (ed) Orthopaedics. Springer, Berlin, pp 462–491

    Google Scholar 

  28. Edler A, Murray DJ, Forbes RB (2003) Blood loss during posterior spinal fusion surgery in patients with neuromuscular disease: is there an increased risk? Paediatr Anesth 13(9):818

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Bentley G, Haddad F, Bull TM, Seingry D (2001) The treatment of scoliosis in muscular dystrophy using modified Luque and Harrington-Luque instrumentation. J Bone Joint Surg Br 83-B:22–28

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Trauma and Orthopaedics, Northern Deanery, Newcastle-Upon-Tyne, UK

    Ranganathan Arun

  2. Centre for Spinal Studies and Surgery, Nottingham University Hospital, Nottingham, UK

    S. Srinivas & S. M. H. Mehdian

  3. 45 St Cuthberts Avenue, Marton-in-Cleveland, Middlesbrough, TS7 8RG, UK

    Ranganathan Arun

Authors
  1. Ranganathan Arun
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. S. Srinivas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. S. M. H. Mehdian
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ranganathan Arun.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Arun, R., Srinivas, S. & Mehdian, S.M.H. Scoliosis in Duchenne’s muscular dystrophy: a changing trend in surgical management. Eur Spine J 19, 376–383 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-009-1163-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-009-1163-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation