European Spine Journal

, Volume 14, Issue 9, pp 854–861 | Cite as

Minimum 20-year follow-up results of Harrington rod fusion for idiopathic scoliosis

Original Article

Abstract

We evaluated the outcome of spinal fusion with a single Harrington distraction rod in patients with idiopathic scoliosis. At follow-up visits a minimum of 20 years post-surgery, we studied 24 patients who had been operated on by the same surgeon. The Scoliosis Research Society (SRS) Instrument and an additional questionnaire of our own, along with an invitation for a follow-up visit, were originally mailed to 28 consecutive patients of the surgeon. The SRS Instrument has seven domains dealing with back pain, general self-image, self-image after surgery, general function, function in terms of level of activity, function after surgery, and degree of satisfaction with the surgery. The length of time between surgery and the follow-up visit averaged 22.9 years (20.2–27.3). The mean age at surgery and follow-up were 15.8 (13–22) and 38.8 (35–48) years, respectively. Twenty-four patients sent back the completed questionnaires and 16 of them participated in the clinic and radiographic follow-up. To assess the meaning of the questionnaires’ results, a control group of the same sex, age and geographic provenance was selected from our outpatients without scoliosis. The average follow-up score on the SRS Instrument for the patients was 100.8 (78–110). When we compared the study and control groups, no significant differences in the single SRS domain scores were observed. The mean Cobb angle and rib cage deformity before surgery were 70.46° (40–120) and 36.4 mm (20–60 mm), respectively, whereas on follow-up they were 41.23° (16–75) and 22.3 mm (5–50 mm), respectively. These long-term results lead us to consider Harrington fusion a procedure that produces a long-lasting high degree of self-reported post-operative satisfaction.

Keywords

Scoliosis Quality of life Spinal fusion Treatment outcome 

References

  1. 1.
    Asher M, Min Lai S, Burton D, Manna B (2003) Discrimination validity of the Scoliosis Research Society-22 Patient Questionnaire: relationship to idiopathic scoliosis curve pattern and curve size. Spine 28:74–77CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Asher MA, Min Lai S, Burton DC (2000) Further development and validation of the Scoliosis Research Society (SRS) Outcome Instrument. Spine 25:2381–2386CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bernhardt M, Bridwell KH (1989) Segmental analysis of the sagittal plane alignment of the normal thoracic and lumbar spines and thoracolumbar junction. Spine 14:717–721PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cobb JR (1948) Technique for study of scoliosis. In: Blount WP (ed) AAOS Instructional Course Lectures. J Edwards, Ann Arbor, pp 261–275Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cochran T, Irstam L, Nachemson A (1983) Long-term anatomic and functional changes in patients with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis treated by Harrington rod fusion. Spine 8:576–584PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Connolly PJ, Von Schroeder HP, Johnson GE, Kostuik JP (1995) Adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. J Bone and Joint Surg Am 77:1210–1216Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    D’Andrea LP, Betz RR, Lenke LG, Clements DH, Lowe TG, Merola A et al. (2000) Do radiographic parameters correlate with clinical outcomes in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis? Spine 25:1795–1802CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Danielsson AJ, Wiklund I, Pehrsson K, Nachemson AL (2001) Health-related quality of life in patients with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: a matched follow-up at least 20 years after treatment with brace or surgery. Eur Spine J 10:278–288CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Danielsson AJ, Nachemson AL (2003) Back pain and function 23 years after fusion for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: a case control study – part II. Spine 28:E373–E383CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dickson JH, Erwin WD, Rossi D (1990) Harrington instrumentation and arthrodesis for idiopathic scoliosis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 72:678–683PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gaeta GB, Sofolini T, Taliani G, Ippolito FM, Giusti G, De Bac C (1999) Surgical procedures as a major risk factor for chronic hepatitis C virus infection in Italy: evidence from a case-control study. Int J Infect Dis 3:207–210CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Haher TR, Gorup JM, Shin TM, Homel P, Merola AA, Grogan DP et al. (1999) Results of the Scoliosis Research Society instrument for evaluation of surgical outcome in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Spine 24:1435–1440CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Harrington PR (1962) Treatment of scoliosis. Correction and internal fixation by spine instrumentation. J Bone Joint Surg Am 44:591–610Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Helenius I, Remes V, Yrjönen T, Ylikoski M, Schlenza D, Helenius M et al. (2002) Comparison of long-term functional and radiologic outcomes after Harrington instrumentation and spondylodesis in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Spine 27:176–180CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Istituto Nazionale di Statistica (2002) Annuario Statistico Italiano 2002. Istituto Poligrafico e Zecca di Stato, RomaGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Keller RB (1999) Point of view. Spine 24:1699–1700CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Keller RB (2003) Point of view. Spine 28:77–78CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    King HA, Moe JH, Bradford DS, Winter RB (1983) The selection of fusion levels in thoracic idiopathic scoliosis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 65:1302–1313PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    La Torre G, De Vito E, Langiano E, Petta P, Colarossi G, Cipriani L et al. (2003) Epidemiology of hepatitis C virus antibodies in blood donors from the province of Latina, Italy. Eur J Epidemiol 18:691–694CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Padua R, Padua S, Aulisa L, Ceccarelli E, Padua L, Romanini E et al. (2001) Patient outcomes after Harrington instrumentation for idiopathic scoliosis. Spine 26:1268–1273CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Rinella A, Lenke L, Peelle M, Edwards C, Bridwell KH, Sides B (2004) Comparison of SRS Questionnaire results submitted by both parents and patients in the operative treatment of idiopathic scoliosis. Spine 29:303–310CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Wildner M (1995) Lost to follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Br 77:657PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Ylikoski M, Tallroth K (1990) Measurement variations in scoliotic angle, vertebral rotation, vertebral body height, and intervertebral disc height space. J Spinal Disord 3:387–391PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Orthopaedics and TraumatologyUniversity “Federico II”Italy

Personalised recommendations