Skip to main content
Log in

Does addition of crosslink to pedicle-screw-based instrumentation impact the development of the spinal canal in children younger than 5 years of age?

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

Abstract

Purpose

Use of pedicle screws has been popularized in the treatment of pediatric spinal deformity. Despite many studies regarding the effect of pedicle screws on the immature spine, there is no study concerning the impact of addition of crosslink to pedicle-screw-based instrumentation on the development of the spinal canal in young children. This study aims to determine the influence of the screw–rod-crosslink complex on the development of the spinal canal.

Methods

This study reviewed 34 patients with congenital scoliosis (14 boys and 20 girls) who were treated with posterior-only hemivertebrectomy and pedicle-screw-based short-segment instrumentation before the age of 5 years. The mean age at surgery in this cohort was 37 ± 11 months (range 21–57 months). They were followed up for at least 24 months. Of these patients, 10 underwent only pedicle screw instrumentation without crosslink, and 24 with additional crosslink placement. The vertebrae were divided into three regions as follows: (1) S-CL (screw-crosslink) region, in which the vertebrae were inserted with bilateral pedicle screws and two rods connected with the crosslink; (2) S (screw) region, in which the vertebrae were inserted with bilateral pedicle screws but without crosslink; (3) NS (no screws) region, which comprised vertebrae cephalad or caudal to the instrumented region. The area, anteroposterior and transverse diameters of the spinal canal were measured at all vertebrae on the postoperative and last follow-up computed tomography axial images. The instrumentation-related parameters were also measured, including the distance between the bilateral screws and the screw base angles. The changes in the above measurements were compared between each region to evaluate the instrumentation’s effect on the spinal canal growth.

Results

The mean follow-up was 37 ± 13 months (range 24–68 months) and the mean age at the last follow-up was 74 ± 20 months (range 46–119 months). In each region, the spinal canal dimensions significantly increased during the follow-up period. There was no significant difference in the spinal canal growth rate between the S and NS regions or between the S-CL and NS regions. Besides, a comparison of the S-CL and S regions regarding the changes in the measurements of the instrumentation construct revealed no significant differences.

Conclusion

Pedicle-screw-based instrumentation does not cause retardation of the development of the spinal canal in young children. Moreover, use of the crosslink added to the screw–rod instrumentation also demonstrates no negative effect on the growth of the spinal canal. Thus, the addition of the crosslink to short screw-based instrumentation is recommended as an alternative to increase fixation stability in growing patients, even in very young pediatric population.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Vital JM, Beguiristain JL, Algara C, Villas C, Lavignolle B, Grenier N, Senegas J (1989) The neurocentral vertebral cartilage: anatomy, physiology and physiopathology. Surg Radiol Anat 11:323–328

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Maat GJ, Matricali B, van Persijn van Meerten EL (1996) Postnatal development and structure of the neurocentral junction: its relevance for spinal surgery. Spine 21:661–666

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Labrom RD (2007) Growth and maturation of the spine from birth to adolescence. J Bone Joint Surg Am 89:3–7

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Cil A, Yazici M, Daglioglu K, Aydingoz U, Alanay A, Acaroglu RE, Gulsen M, Surat A (2005) The effect of pedicle screw placement with or without application of compression across the neurocentral cartilage on the morphology of the spinal canal and pedicle in immature pigs. Spine 30:1287–1293

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Zhang H, Sucato DJ, Nurenberg P, McClung A (2010) Morphometric analysis of neurocentral synchondrosis using magnetic resonance imaging in the normal skeletally immature spine. Spine 35:76–82

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Zhang H, Sucato DJ (2011) Neurocentral synchondrosis screws to create and correct experimental deformity: a pilot study. Clin Orthop Relat Res 469:1383–1390

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Ruf M, Harms J (2002) Pedicle screws in 1- and 2-year-old children: technique, complications, and effect on further growth. Spine 27:E460–E466

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Ruf M, Harms J (2003) Posterior hemivertebra resection with transpedicular instrumentation: early correction in children aged 1 to 6 years. Spine 28:2132–2138

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Olgun ZD, Demirkiran G, Ayvaz M, Karadeniz E, Yazici M (2012) The effect of pedicle screw insertion at a young age on pedicle and canal development. Spine 37:1778–1784

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Li J, Lu GH, Wang B, Wang XB, Lu C, Kang YJ (2013) Pedicle screw implantation in the thoracic and lumbar spine of 1–4-year-old children: evaluating the safety and accuracy by a computer tomography follow-up. J Spinal Disord Tech 26:E46–E52

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Xue XH, Shen JX, Zhang JG, Li SG, Wang YP, Qiu GX (2014) X-Ray assessment of the effect of pedicle screw on vertebra and spinal canal growth in children before the age of 7 years. Eur Spine J 23:520–529

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Zhang QH, Tan SH, Chou SM (2004) Investigation of fixation screw pull-out strength on human spine. J Biomech 37:479–485

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. White KK, Oka R, Mahar AT, Lowry A, Garfin SR (2006) Pullout strength of thoracic pedicle screw instrumentation: comparison of the transpedicular and extrapedicular techniques. Spine 31:E355–E358

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Toyone T, Ozawa T, Inada K, Shirahata T, Shiboi R, Watanabe A, Matsuki K, Kitahara S, Hasue F, Fujiyoshi T, Aoki Y, Inoue G, Orita S, Ohtori S, Wada Y, Tanaka T, Takahashi K (2013) Short-segment fixation without fusion for thoracolumbar burst fractures with neurological deficit can preserve thoracolumbar motion without resulting in post-traumatic disc degeneration: a 10-year follow-up study. Spine 38:1482–1490

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Kesling KL, Lonstein JE, Denis F, Perra JH, Schwender JD, Transfeldt EE, Winter RB (2003) The crankshaft phenomenon after posterior spinal arthrodesis for congenital scoliosis: a review of 54 patients. Spine 28:267–271

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. McLain RF, Sparling E, Benson DR (1993) Early failure of short-segment pedicle instrumentation for thoracolumbar fractures. A preliminary report. J Bone Joint Surg Am 75:162–167

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Reames DL, Smith JS, Fu KM, Polly DW Jr, Ames CP, Berven SH, Perra JH, Glassman SD, McCarthy RE, Knapp RD Jr, Heary R, Shaffrey CI, Scoliosis Research Society M, Mortality C (2011) Complications in the surgical treatment of 19,360 cases of pediatric scoliosis: a review of the Scoliosis Research Society Morbidity and Mortality database. Spine 36:1484–1491

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Kulkarni AG, Dhruv AN, Bassi AJ (2013) Should we cross the cross-links? Spine 38:E1128–E1134

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Lynn G, Mukherjee DP, Kruse RN, Sadasivan KK, Albright JA (1997) Mechanical stability of thoracolumbar pedicle screw fixation. The effect of crosslinks. Spine 22:1568–1572 (discussion 1573)

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Dick JC, Zdeblick TA, Bartel BD, Kunz DN (1997) Mechanical evaluation of cross-link designs in rigid pedicle screw systems. Spine 22:370–375

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Brodke DS, Bachus KN, Mohr RA, Nguyen BK (2001) Segmental pedicle screw fixation or cross-links in multilevel lumbar constructs. a biomechanical analysis. Spine J 1:373–379

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Kuklo TR, Dmitriev AE, Cardoso MJ, Lehman RA Jr, Erickson M, Gill NW (2008) Biomechanical contribution of transverse connectors to segmental stability following long segment instrumentation with thoracic pedicle screws. Spine 33:E482–E487

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Hart R, Hettwer W, Liu Q, Prem S (2006) Mechanical stiffness of segmental versus nonsegmental pedicle screw constructs: the effect of cross-links. Spine 31:E35–E38

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Wahba GM, Bhatia N, Bui CNH, Lee KH, Lee TQ (2010) Biomechanical evaluation of short-segment posterior instrumentation with and without crosslinks in a human cadaveric unstable thoracolumbar burst fracture model. Spine 35:278–285

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Zhu F, Sun X, Qiao J, Ding Y, Zhang B, Qiu Y (2014) Misplacement pattern of pedicle screws in pediatric patients with spinal deformity: a computed tomography study. J Spinal Disord Tech 27:431–435

  26. Zindrick MR, Knight GW, Sartori MJ, Carnevale TJ, Patwardhan AG, Lorenz MA (2000) Pedicle morphology of the immature thoracolumbar spine. Spine 25:2726–2735

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Smith JT, Gollogly S, Dunn HK (2005) Simultaneous anterior–posterior approach through a costotransversectomy for the treatment of congenital kyphosis and acquired kyphoscoliotic deformities. J Bone Joint Surg Am 87:2281–2289

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Hedequist D, Emans J, Proctor M (2009) Three rod technique facilitates hemivertebra wedge excision in young children through a posterior only approach. Spine 34:E225–E229

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Lord MJ, Ogden JA, Ganey TM (1995) Postnatal development of the thoracic spine. Spine 20:1692–1698

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Yamazaki A, Mason DE, Caro PA (1998) Age of closure of the neurocentral cartilage in the thoracic spine. J Pediatr Orthop 18:168–172

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Rajwani T, Bhargava R, Moreau M, Mahood J, Raso VJ, Jiang H, Bagnall KM (2002) MRI characteristics of the neurocentral synchondrosis. Pediatr Radiol 32:811–816

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Fekete TF, Kleinstuck FS, Mannion AF, Kendik ZS, Jeszenszky DJ (2011) Prospective study of the effect of pedicle screw placement on development of the immature vertebra in an in vivo porcine model. Eur Spine J 20:1892–1898

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 81401848, 81372010).

Conflict of interest

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Xu Sun.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Chen, Zh., Chen, X., Zhu, Zz. et al. Does addition of crosslink to pedicle-screw-based instrumentation impact the development of the spinal canal in children younger than 5 years of age?. Eur Spine J 24, 1391–1398 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-014-3727-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-014-3727-7

Keywords

Navigation