Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Role of rod diameter in comparison between only screws versus hooks and screws in posterior instrumentation of thoracic curve in idiopathic scoliosis

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

Abstract

Since the introduction of Cotrel–Dubousset instrumentation in 1984, the correction techniques in scoliosis surgery have changed from Harrington principles of concave distraction to segmental realignment to a variety of possibilities including the rod rotation manoeuvres, and to segmental approximation via cantilever methods. Additionally, pedicle screw utilization in lumbar curves enhanced correction and stabilization of various deformities, and various studies have strongly supported the clinical advantages of lumbar pedicle screws versus conventional hook instrumentation. Pedicle screw constructs have become increasingly popular in the treatment of patients with spinal deformity. When applied to adolescent idiopathic scoliosis patients, pedicle screw fixation has demonstrated increased corrective ability compared with traditional hook/hybrid instrumentation. In our study, we do a retrospective review of idiopathic scoliosis patients (King 2–Lenke 1 B/C) treated with a selective thoracic posterior fusion using an all-screw construct versus a hybrid (pedicle screws and hooks) construct and, compare the percentage of correction of the scoliotic curves obtained with screws alone and screws and hooks. Special attention was given to the rod diameter and correction technique. Our results show that the percentage of correction of idiopathic thoracic scoliosis is similar when treating the scoliosis with rods and screws alone or with rods, screws and hooks; therefore, we and the majority of authors in the literature do not consider the rod section. This can be an important parameter in the evaluation of the superiority of treatment with screws only or screws and hooks. In our study, even if not of statistical significance, the better thoracic curve correction obtained with the hybrid group should be ascribed to the fact that in this group mostly 6 mm rods were used.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Cotrel Y, Dubousset J (1984) A new technique for segmental spinal osteosynthesis using the posterior approach. Rev Chir Orthop Reparatrice Appar Mot 70:489–494

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Harrington PR (1962) Treatment of scoliosis: correction and internal fixation by spine instrumentation. J Bone Jt Surg Am 44:591–610

    Google Scholar 

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

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Lehman RA Jr, Lenke LG, Keeler KA, Kim YJ, Buchowski JM, Cheh G, Kuhns CA, Bridwell KH (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(14):1598–1604

    Google Scholar 

  6. Lowenstein JE, Matsumoto H, Vitale MG, Weidenbaum M, Gomez JA, Lee FY, Hyman JE, Roye DP Jr (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(4):448–452

    Google Scholar 

  7. Brown CA, Lenke LG, Bridwell KH et al (1998) Complications of pediatric thoracolumbar and lumbar pedicle screws. Spine 23:1566–1571

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Hamill CL, Lenke LG, Bridwell KH et al (1996) The use of pedicle screw fixation to improve correction in the lumbar spine of patients with idiopathic scoliosis. Spine 21:1241–1249

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Gaines RW (2000) The use of pedicle-screw internal fixation for the operative treatment of spinal disorders. J Bone Jt Surg Am 82:1458–1769

    Google Scholar 

  10. Barr SJ, Schuette AM, Emans JB (1997) Lumbar pedicle screws versus hooks. Results in double major curves in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Spine 22:1369–1379

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Dobbs MB, Lenke LG, Kim YJ et al (2006) Selective posterior thoracic fusions for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: comparison of hooks versus pedicle screws. Spine 31:2400–2404

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Kim YJ, Lenke LG, Cho SK et al (2004) Comparative analysis of pedicle screw versus hook instrumentation in posterior spinal fusion of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Spine 29:2040–2048

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Suk SI, Kim WJ, Kim JH et al (1999) Restoration of thoracic kyphosis in the hypokyphotic spine: a comparison between multiple-hook and segmental pedicle screw fixation in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. J Spinal Disord 12:489–495

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Liljenqvist U, Hackenberg L, Link T et al (2001) Pullout strength of pedicle screws versus pedicle and laminar hooks in the thoracic spine. Acta Orthop Belg 67:157–163

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Kuklo TR, Lenke LG, O’Brien MF et al (2005) Accuracy and efficacy of thoracic pedicle screws in curves more than 90 degrees. Spine 30:222–226

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Halm H, Niemeyer T, Link T et al (2000) Segmental pedicle screw instrumentation in idiopathic thoracolumbar and lumbar scoliosis. Eur Spine J 9:191–197

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Liljenqvist UR, Halm HF, Link TM (1997) Pedicle screw instrumentation of the thoracic spine in idiopathic scoliosis. Spine 22:2239–2245

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Belmont PJ Jr, Klemme WR, Dhawan A et al (2001) In vivo accuracy of thoracic pedicle screws. Spine 26:2340–2346

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Kim YJ, Lenke LG, Bridwell KH et al (2004) Free hand pedicle screw placement in the thoracic spine: is it safe? Spine 29:333–342 (discussion 2042)

    Google Scholar 

  21. Yu B, Zhang JG, Qiu GX, Wang YP, Zhao Y, Shen JX, Zhao H, Yang XY (2009) Posterior selective thoracic fusion in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis patients: a comparison of all pedicle screws versus hybrid instrumentation. Chin Med Sci J 24(1):30–35

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Rose PS, Lenke LG, Bridwell KH, Mulconrey DS, Cronen GA, Buchowski JM, Schwend RM, Sides BA (2009) Pedicle screw instrumentation for adult idiopathic scoliosis: an improvement over hook/hybrid fixation. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 34(8):852–857

    Google Scholar 

  23. Bullmann V, Liljenqvist UR, Schmidt C, Schulte TL (2009) Posterior operative correction of idiopathic scoliosis. Value of pedicle screws versus hooks. Orthopade 38(2):198–200, 202–204

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of II Spine Surgery, I.R.C.C.S Istituto Ortopedico Galeazzi, Via Riccardo Galeazzi 4, 20126, Milan, Italy

    Claudio Lamartina, Maria Petruzzi & Marcello Macchia

  2. Department of Radiology, I.R.C.C.S Istituto Ortopedico Galeazzi, Via Riccardo Galeazzi 4, 20126, Milan, Italy

    Paola Stradiotti & Alberto Zerbi

Authors
  1. Claudio Lamartina
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Maria Petruzzi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Marcello Macchia
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Paola Stradiotti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Alberto Zerbi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Claudio Lamartina.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Lamartina, C., Petruzzi, M., Macchia, M. et al. Role of rod diameter in comparison between only screws versus hooks and screws in posterior instrumentation of thoracic curve in idiopathic scoliosis. Eur Spine J 20 (Suppl 1), 85–89 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-011-1757-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-011-1757-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation