Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Do vertebral derotation techniques offer better outcomes compared to traditional methods in the surgical treatment of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis?

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

Abstract

Purpose

In recent years, authors have described novel derotation techniques for surgery in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. These methods include direct vertebral body derotation (DVD) and vertebral coplanar alignment (VCA). By improved derotation it is hoped that there is further reduction in rib hump prominence and corresponding improvement in patients’ quality of life. This paper aims to evaluate studies reporting outcomes from DVD and VCA techniques to assess if these methods lead to superior radiographic vertebral derotation, rib hump correction on surface measurements or patient-reported outcomes compared to traditional derotation manoeuvres using similar instrumentation.

Method

Literature review.

Results

Fifteen reports were identified. Most comparative studies represent class three or four data. DVD and VCA techniques have been shown to reduce apical vertebral rotation by 37–63 %. Few studies compare DVD/VCA techniques with traditional methods. Most DVD/VCA reports with pedicle screw instrumentation have reported superior radiographic derotation on CT compared with conventional techniques. Despite this the majority of studies have found similar corrections of rib hump measurements between DVD/VCA techniques and cantilever or global derotation methods. There is no evidence that DVD/VCA techniques allow greater correction of significant rib hump deformity without an adjuvant thoracoplasty. No studies to date have used patient-reported outcomes prospectively or demonstrated clinically meaningful differences retrospectively between DVD/VCA and conventional techniques.

Conclusions

There is little evidence to recommend the widespread adoption of DVD/VCA techniques. Whilst there is some weak evidence to suggest that novel techniques may improve radiographic measures, there is little to suggest that they offer patients improved correction of clinical rib hump or quality of life compared to established techniques. Further well-designed prospective studies are needed in this area.

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.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Pratt RK, Burwell RG, Cole AA et al (2002) Patient and parental perception of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis before and after surgery in comparison with surface and radiographic measurements. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 27:1543–1550 Discussion 1551-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Carlson BB, Burton DC, Asher MA (2013) Comparison of trunk and spine deformity in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Scoliosis 8:2

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Cui G, Watanabe K, Nishiwaki Y et al (2012) Loss of apical vertebral derotation in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: 2-year follow-up using multi-planar reconstruction computed tomography. Eur Spine J 21:1111–1120

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Hong JY, Suh SW, Easwar TR et al (2011) Evaluation of the three-dimensional deformities in scoliosis surgery with computed tomography: efficacy and relationship with clinical outcomes. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 36:E1259–E1265

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Webb JK, Burwell RG, Cole AA et al (1995) Posterior instrumentation in scoliosis. Eur Spine J 4:2–5

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Muschik M, Schlenzka D, Robinson PN et al (1999) Dorsal instrumentation for idiopathic adolescent thoracic scoliosis: rod rotation versus translation. Eur Spine J 8:93–99

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Cotrel Y, Dubousset J, Guillaumat M (1988) New universal instrumentation in spinal surgery. Clin Orthop Relat Res 227:10–23

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Abul-Kasim K, Karlsson MK, Ohlin A (2011) Increased rod stiffness improves the degree of deformity correction by segmental pedicle screw fixation in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Scoliosis 6:13

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Asghar J, Samdani AF, Pahys JM et al (2009) Computed tomography evaluation of rotation correction in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: a comparison of an all pedicle screw construct versus a hook–rod system. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 34:804–807

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Di Silvestre M, Lolli F, Bakaloudis G et al (2013) Apical vertebral derotation in the posterior treatment of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: myth or reality? Eur Spine J 22:313–323

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Hwang SW, Samdani AF, Cahill PJ (2012) The impact of segmental and en bloc derotation maneuvers on scoliosis correction and rib prominence in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. J Neurosurg Spine 16:345–350

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Hwang SW, Samdani AF, Gressot LV et al (2012) Effect of direct vertebral body derotation on the sagittal profile in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Eur Spine J 21:31–39

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Hwang SW, Samdani AF, Lonner B et al (2012) Impact of direct vertebral body derotation on rib prominence: are preoperative factors predictive of changes in rib prominence? Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 37:E86–E89

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Kadoury S, Cheriet F, Beausejour M et al (2009) A three-dimensional retrospective analysis of the evolution of spinal instrumentation for the correction of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Eur Spine J 18:23–37

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Lee SM, Suk SI, Chung ER (2004) Direct vertebral rotation: a new technique of three-dimensional deformity correction with segmental pedicle screw fixation in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 29:343–349

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Mattila M, Jalanko T, Helenius I (2013) En bloc vertebral column derotation provides spinal derotation but no additional effect on thoracic rib hump correction as compared with no derotation in adolescents undergoing surgery for idiopathic scoliosis with total pedicle screw instrumentation. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 38:1576–1583

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Samdani AF, Hwang SW, Miyanji F et al (2012) Direct vertebral body derotation, thoracoplasty, or both: which is better with respect to inclinometer and scoliosis research society-22 scores? Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 37:E849–E853

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Suk SI, Kim JH, Kim SS et al (2008) Thoracoplasty in thoracic adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 33:1061–1067

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Watanabe K, Nakamura T, Iwanami A et al (2012) Vertebral derotation in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis causes hypokyphosis of the thoracic spine. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 13:99

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Qiu Y, Zhu F, Wang B et al (2011) Comparison of surgical outcomes of lenke type 1 idiopathic scoliosis: vertebral coplanar alignment versus derotation technique. J Spinal Disord Tech 24:492–499

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Sun L, Song Y, Liu L et al (2013) Bilateral apical vertebral derotation technique by vertebral column manipulation compared with vertebral coplanar alignment technique in the correction of lenke type 1 idiopathic scoliosis. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 14:175

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Vallespir GP, Flores JB, Trigueros IS et al (2008) Vertebral coplanar alignment: a standardized technique for three dimensional correction in scoliosis surgery: technical description and preliminary results in Lenke type 1 curves. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 33:1588–1597

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Harvey CJ Jr, Betz RR, Clements DH et al (1993) Are there indications for partial rib resection in patients with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis treated with Cotrel–Dubousset instrumentation? Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 18:1593–1598

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Min K, Waelchli B, Hahn F (2005) Primary thoracoplasty and pedicle screw instrumentation in thoracic idiopathic scoliosis. Eur Spine J 14:777–782

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Greggi T, Bakaloudis G, Fusaro I et al (2010) Pulmonary function after thoracoplasty in the surgical treatment of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. J Spinal Disord Tech 23:e63–e69

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Lenke LG, Bridwell KH, Baldus C et al (1992) Analysis of pulmonary function and axis rotation in adolescent and young adult idiopathic scoliosis patients treated with Cotrel–Dubousset instrumentation. J Spinal Disord 5:16–25

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Vedantam R, Lenke LG, Bridwell KH et al (2000) A prospective evaluation of pulmonary function in patients with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis relative to the surgical approach used for spinal arthrodesis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 25:82–90

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Kim YJ, Lenke LG, Bridwell KH et al (2005) Pulmonary function in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis relative to the surgical procedure. J Bone Jt Surg Am 87:1534–1541

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Gitelman Y, Lenke LG, Bridwell KH et al (2011) Pulmonary function in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis relative to the surgical procedure: a 10-year follow-up analysis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 36:1665–1672

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Lenke LG, Bridwell KH, Blanke K et al (1995) Analysis of pulmonary function and chest cage dimension changes after thoracoplasty in idiopathic scoliosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 20:1343–1350

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Roach JW, Mehlman CT, Sanders JO (2011) Does the outcome of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis surgery justify the rising cost of the procedures? J Pediatr Orthop 31:S77–S80

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Ecker ML, Betz RR, Trent PS et al (1988) Computer tomography evaluation of Cotrel–Dubousset instrumentation in idiopathic scoliosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 13:1141–1144

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. OCEBM Levels of Evidence Working Group*. “The Oxford 2011 Levels of Evidence”.. Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine. http://www.cebm.net/index.aspx?o=5653

  34. Aaro S, Dahlborn M, Svensson L (1978) Estimation of vertebral rotation in structural scoliosis by computer tomography. Acta Radiol Diagn (Stockh) 19:990–992

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Ho EK, Upadhyay SS, Ferris L et al (1992) A comparative study of computed tomographic and plain radiographic methods to measure vertebral rotation in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 17:771–774

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Upasani VV, Chambers RC, Dalal AH et al (2009) Grading apical vertebral rotation without a computed tomography scan: a clinically relevant system based on the radiographic appearance of bilateral pedicle screws. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 34:1855–1862

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Chang M, Lenke L (2009) Vertebral derotation in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Oper Tech Orthop 19:19–23

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Bago J, Perez-Grueso FJ, Les E et al (2009) Minimal important differences of the SRS-22 Patient Questionnaire following surgical treatment of idiopathic scoliosis. Eur Spine J 18:1898–1904

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Carreon LY, Sanders JO, Diab M et al (2010) The minimum clinically important difference in Scoliosis Research Society-22 appearance, activity, and pain domains after surgical correction of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 35:2079–2083

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Luk KD, Cheung WY, Wong Y et al (2012) The predictive value of the fulcrum bending radiograph in spontaneous apical vertebral derotation in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 37:E922–E926

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. White AA 3rd, Panjabi MM (1976) The clinical biomechanics of scoliosis. Clin Orthop Relat Res 118:100–112

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Karatoprak O, Unay K, Tezer M et al (2008) Comparative analysis of pedicle screw versus hybrid instrumentation in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis surgery. Int Orthop 32:523–528 Discussion 529

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Fu G, Kawakami N, Goto M et al (2009) Comparison of vertebral rotation corrected by different techniques and anchors in surgical treatment of adolescent thoracic idiopathic scoliosis. J Spinal Disord Tech 22:182–189

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Lehman RA Jr, Lenke LG, Keeler KA et al (2008) Operative treatment of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis with posterior pedicle screw-only constructs: minimum three-year follow-up of one hundred fourteen cases. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 33:1598–1604

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Suk SI, Lee CK, Kim WJ et al (1995) Segmental pedicle screw fixation in the treatment of thoracic idiopathic scoliosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 20:1399–1405

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Hwang CJ, Lee CK, Chang BS et al (2011) Minimum 5-year follow-up results of skipped pedicle screw fixation for flexible idiopathic scoliosis. J Neurosurg Spine 15:146–150

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. D’Andrea LP, Betz RR, Lenke LG et al (2000) Do radiographic parameters correlate with clinical outcomes in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis? Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 25:1795–1802

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Theologis TN, Jefferson RJ, Simpson AH et al (1993) Quantifying the cosmetic defect of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 18:909–912

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  49. Helenius I, Remes V, Yrjonen T et al (2003) Harrington and Cotrel–Dubousset instrumentation in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: long-term functional and radiographic outcomes. J Bone Jt Surg Am 85-A:2303–2309

    Google Scholar 

  50. Asher M, Min Lai S, Burton D et al (2003) Discrimination validity of the scoliosis research society-22 patient questionnaire: relationship to idiopathic scoliosis curve pattern and curve size. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 28:74–78

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Izatt MT, Adam CJ, Labrom RD et al (2010) The relationship between deformity correction and clinical outcomes after thoracoscopic scoliosis surgery: a prospective series of one hundred patients. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 35:E1577–E1585

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Shah SA (2007) Derotation of the spine. Neurosurg Clin N Am 18:339–345

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Kuklo TR, Potter BK, Lenke LG (2005) Vertebral rotation and thoracic torsion in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: what is the best radiographic correlate? J Spinal Disord Tech 18:139–147

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Potter BK, Kuklo TR, Lenke LG (2005) Radiographic outcomes of anterior spinal fusion versus posterior spinal fusion with thoracic pedicle screws for treatment of Lenke Type I adolescent idiopathic scoliosis curves. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 30:1859–1866

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Aaro S, Dahlborn M (1981) The longitudinal axis rotation of the apical vertebra, the vertebral, spinal, and rib cage deformity in idiopathic scoliosis studied by computer tomography. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 6:567–572

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  56. Erkula G, Sponseller PD, Kiter AE (2003) Rib deformity in scoliosis. Eur Spine J 12:281–287

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Scutt ND, Dangerfield PH, Dorgan JC (1996) The relationship between surface and radiological deformity in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: effect of change in body position. Eur Spine J 5:85–90

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Thulbourne T, Gillespie R (1976) The rib hump in idiopathic scoliosis: measurement, analysis and response to treatment. J Bone Jt Surg Br 58:64–71

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  59. Korovessis PG, Stamatakis MV (1996) Prediction of scoliotic cobb angle with the use of the scoliometer. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 21:1661–1666

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  60. Gaines RW, McKinley LM, Leatherman KD (1981) Effect of the Harrington compression system on the correction of the rib hump in spinal instrumentation for idiopathic scoliosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 6:489–493

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  61. Pratt RK, Webb JK, Burwell RG et al (2001) Changes in surface and radiographic deformity after universal spine system for right thoracic adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: is rib-hump reassertion a mechanical problem of the thoracic cage rather than an effect of relative anterior spinal overgrowth? Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 26:1778–1787

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  62. Sevastik J, Agadir M, Sevastik B (1990) Effects of rib elongation on the spine. II: correction of scoliosis in the rabbit. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 15:826–829

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  63. Sevastik J, Agadir M, Sevastik B (1990) Effects of rib elongation on the spine. I: distortion of the vertebral alignment in the rabbit. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 15:822–825

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  64. Grivas TB, Vasiliadis ES, Mihas C et al (2007) The effect of growth on the correlation between the spinal and rib cage deformity: implications on idiopathic scoliosis pathogenesis. Scoliosis 2:11

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. 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 (Phila Pa 1976) 31:291–298

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Vora V, Crawford A, Babekhir N et al (2007) A pedicle screw construct gives an enhanced posterior correction of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis when compared with other constructs: myth or reality. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 32:1869–1874

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Lowenstein JE, Matsumoto H, Vitale MG et al (2007) Coronal and sagittal plane correction in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: a comparison between all pedicle screw versus hybrid thoracic hook lumbar screw constructs. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 32:448–452

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Mladenov KV, Vaeterlein C, Stuecker R (2011) Selective posterior thoracic fusion by means of direct vertebral derotation in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: effects on the sagittal alignment. Eur Spine J 20:1114–1117

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Wagner MR, Flores JB, Sanpera I et al (2011) Aortic abutment after direct vertebral rotation: plowing of pedicle screws. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 36:243–247

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Cheng I, Hay D, Iezza A et al (2010) Biomechanical analysis of derotation of the thoracic spine using pedicle screws. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 35:1039–1043

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

None of the authors has any potential conflict of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Centre for Spinal Studies and Surgery, Queen’s Medical Centre, Derby Road, Nottingham, NG7 2UH, UK

    Paul R. P. Rushton & Michael P. Grevitt

Authors
  1. Paul R. P. Rushton
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Michael P. Grevitt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Paul R. P. Rushton.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Rushton, P.R.P., Grevitt, M.P. Do vertebral derotation techniques offer better outcomes compared to traditional methods in the surgical treatment of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis?. Eur Spine J 23, 1166–1176 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-014-3242-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-014-3242-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation