European Spine Journal

, Volume 16, Issue 1, pp 57–64

Variability of spinal instrumentation configurations in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis

  • Carl-Eric Aubin
  • Hubert Labelle
  • Oana C. Ciolofan
Original Article

Abstract

Surgical instrumentation for the correction of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) is a complex procedure involving many difficult decisions (i.e. spinal segment to instrument, type/location/number of hooks or screws, rod diameter/length/shape, implant attachment order, amount of rod rotation, etc.). Recent advances in instrumentation technology have brought a large increase in the number of options. Despite numerous clinical publications, there is still no consensus on the optimal surgical plan for each curve type. The objective of this study was to document and analyse instrumentation configuration and strategy variability. Five females (12–19 years) with AIS and an indication for posterior surgical instrumentation and fusion were selected. Curve patterns were as follows: two right thoracic (Cobb: 34°, 52°), two right thoracic and left lumbar (Cobb T/L: 57°/45°, 72°/70°) and 1 left thoraco-lumbar (Cobb: 64°). The pre-operative standing postero-anterior and lateral radiographs, supine side bending radiographs, a three-dimensional (3D) reconstruction of the spine, pertinent 3D measurements as well as clinical information such as age and gender of each patient were submitted to six experienced independent spinal deformity surgeons, who were asked to provide their preferred surgical planning using a posterior spinal approach. The following data were recorded using the graphical user interface of a spine surgery simulator (6×5 cases): implant types, vertebral level, position and 3D orientation of implants, anterior release levels, rod diameter and shape, attachment sequence, rod rotation (angle, direction), adjustments (screw rotation, contraction/distraction), etc. Overall, the number of implants used ranged from 11 to 26 per patient (average 16; SD ±4). Of these, 45% were mono-axial screws, 31% multi-axial screws and 24% hooks. At one extremity of the spectrum, one surgeon used only mono-axial screws, while at the other, another surgeon used 81% hooks. The selected superior- and inferior-instrumented vertebrae varied up to six and five levels, respectively (STD 1.2 and 1.5). A top-to-bottom attachment sequence was selected in 61% of the cases, a bottom-up in 29% and an alternate order in 11%. The rod rotation maneuver of the first rod varied from 0° (no rotation) to 140°, with a median at 90°. In conclusion, a large variability of instrumentation strategy in AIS was documented within a small experienced group of spinal deformity surgeons. The exact cause of this large variability is unclear but warrants further investigation with multicenter outcome studies as well as experimental and computer simulation studies. We hypothesize that this variability may be attributed to different objectives for correction, to surgeon’s personal preferences based on their previous experience, to the known inter-observer variability of current classification systems and to the current lack of clearly defined strategies or rational rules based on the validated biomechanical studies with modern multi-segmental instrumentation systems.

Keywords

Scoliosis Surgical instrumentation Pre-operative planning Spine 

References

  1. 1.
    Aubin CE, Descrimes JL, Dansereau J, Skalli W, Lavaste F, Labelle H (1995) Geometrical modeling of the spine and the thorax for the biomechanical analysis of scoliotic deformities using the finite element method (in French). Ann Chir 49(8):749–761PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Aubin CE, Petit Y, Stokes IA, Poulin F, Gardner-Morse M, Labelle H (2003) Biomechanical modeling of posterior instrumentation of the scoliotic spine. Comput Methods Biomech Biomed Eng 6:27–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Barr SJ, Schuette AM, Emans JB (1997) Lumbar pedicle screws versus hooks. Results in double major curves in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Spine 22:1369–1379CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bridwell KH (1994) Surgical treatment of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: the basics and the controversies. Spine 19:1095–1100PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Burton DC, Asher MA, Lai SM (1999) The selection of fusion levels using torsional correction techniques in the surgical treatment of idiopathic scoliosis. Spine 24:1728–1739CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chen PQ (2003) Management of scoliosis. J Formos Med Assoc 102:751–761PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chen PQ, Yen LJ (2001) A 8 to 13–year follow-up of Cotrel-Dubousset instrumentation for the correction of King II and III adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. In: 21st annual combined meeting of the ASEAN and IOA, 2001, BaliGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cummings RJ, Loveless EA, Campbell J, Samelson S, Mazur JM (1998) Interobserver reliability and intraobserver reproducibility of the system of King et al. for the classification of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 80:1107–1111PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Delorme S, Petit Y, de Guise JA, Labelle H, Aubin CE, Dansereau J (2003) Assessment of the 3-D2 reconstruction and high-resolution geometrical modeling of the human skeletal trunk from 2-D radiographic images. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 50:989–998CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ferguson AB (1930) The study and treatment of scoliosis. South Med J 23:116–120Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Goldstein LA (1964) The surgical management of scoliosis. Clin Orthop 35:95–115PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Goldstein LA (1971) The surgical management of scoliosis. Clin Orthop 77:32–56PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Halm H, Niemeyer T, Link T, Liljenqvist U (2000) Segmental pedicle screw instrumentation in idiopathic thoracolumbar and lumbar scoliosis. Eur Spine J 9:191–197CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hamill CL, Lenke LG, Bridwell KH, Chapman MP, Blanke K, Baldus C (1996) The use of pedicle screw fixation to improve correction in the lumbar spine of patients with idiopathic scoliosis. Is it warranted?. Spine 21:1241–1249CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Harrington PR (1962) Treatment of scoliosis. Correction and internal fixation by spine instrumentation. Am J Orthop 44-A:591–610Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Harrington PR (1972) Technical details in relation to the successful use of instrumentation in scoliosis. Orthop Clin North Am 3:49–67PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Herring JA (2002) Tachdjian’s pediatric orthopedics. Saunders, Philadelphia, pp 234–241Google 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.
    Knapp DR Jr, Price CT, Jones ET, Coonrad RW, Flynn JC (1992) Choosing fusion levels in progressive thoracic idiopathic scoliosis. Spine 17:1159–1165PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lee CK, Denis F, Winter RB, Lonstein JE (1993) Analysis of the upper thoracic curve in surgically treated idiopathic scoliosis. A new concept of the double thoracic curve pattern. Spine 18:1599–1608PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lenke LG, Betz RR, Bridwell KH, Clements DH, Harms J, Lowe TG, Shufflebarger HL (1998) Intraobserver and interobserver reliability of the classification of thoracic adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 80:1097–1106PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Lenke LG, Betz RR, Haher TR, Lapp MA, Merola AA, Harms J, Shufflebarger HL (2001) Multisurgeon assessment of surgical decision-making in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: curve classification, operative approach, and fusion levels. Spine 26:2347–2353CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Lenke LG, Betz RR, Harms J, Bridwell KH, Clements DH, Lowe TG, Blanke K (2001) Adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: a new classification to determine extent of spinal arthrodesis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 83-A:1169–1181PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Lenke LG, Bridwell KH, Baldus C, Blanke K (1992) Preventing decompensation in King type II curves treated with Cotrel-Dubousset instrumentation. Strict guidelines for selective thoracic fusion. Spine 17:S274–281PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Liljenqvist U, Lepsien U, Hackenberg L, Niemeyer T, Halm H (2002) Comparative analysis of pedicle screw and hook instrumentation in posterior correction and fusion of idiopathic thoracic scoliosis. Eur Spine J 11:336–343CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Liljenqvist UR, Allkemper T, Hackenberg L, Link TM, Steinbeck J, Halm HF (2002) Analysis of vertebral morphology in idiopathic scoliosis with use of magnetic resonance imaging and multiplanar reconstruction. J Bone Joint Surg Am 84-A:359–368PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Liljenqvist UR, Halm HF, Link TM (1997) Pedicle screw instrumentation of the thoracic spine in idiopathic scoliosis. Spine 22:2239–2245CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Moe JH (1972) Methods of correction and surgical techniques in scoliosis. Orthop Clin North Am 3:17–48PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Nash CL Jr, Moe JH (1969) A study of vertebral rotation. J Bone Joint Surg Am 51:223–229PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Nowakowski A, Labaziewicz L, Skrzypek H, Tobjasz F (1999) [Classification of the adolescent idiopathic scoliosis and preoperative strategy]. Chir Narzadow Ruchu Ortop Pol 64:319–325PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Osebold WR, Yamamoto SK, Hurley JH (1992) The variability of response of scoliotic spines to segmental spinal instrumentation. Spine 17:1174–1179PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Papin P, Arlet V, Marchesi D, Rosenblatt B, Aebi M (1999) Unusual presentation of spinal cord compression related to misplaced pedicle screws in thoracic scoliosis. Eur Spine J 8:156–9; discussion 160Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Puno RM An KC, Puno RL, Jacob A, Chung SS (2003) Treatment recommendations for idiopathic scoliosis: an assessment of the Lenke classification. Spine 28:2102–2115CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Richards BS, Birch JG, Herring JA, Johnston CE, Roach JW (1989) Frontal plane and sagittal plane balance following Cotrel-Dubousset instrumentation for idiopathic scoliosis. Spine 14:733–737PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Richards BS, Sucato DJ, Konigsberg DE, Ouellet JA (2003) Comparison of reliability between the Lenke and King classification systems for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis using radiographs that were not premeasured. Spine 28:1148–1156CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Roye DP Jr, Farcy JP, Rickert JB, Godfried D (1992) Results of spinal instrumentation of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis by King type. Spine 17:S270–273PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Shufflebarger HL, Clark CE (1990) Fusion levels and hook patterns in thoracic scoliosis with Cotrel-Dubousset instrumentation. Spine 15:916–920PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Stokes IA, Bigalow LC, Moreland MS (1986) Measurement of axial rotation of vertebrae in scoliosis [published erratum appears in Spine 1991 May;16(5):599–600] [see comments]. Spine 11(3), 213–8. 1986Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Suk SI, Kim WJ, Kim JH, Lee SM (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 12:489–495PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Suk SI, Kim WJ, Lee CS, Lee SM, Kim JH, Chung ER, Lee JH (2000) Indications of proximal thoracic curve fusion in thoracic adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: recognition and treatment of double thoracic curve pattern in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis treated with segmental instrumentation. Spine 25:2342–2349CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Suk SI, Lee CK, Kim WJ, Chung YJ, Park YB (1995) Segmental pedicle screw fixation in the treatment of thoracic idiopathic scoliosis. Spine 20:1399–1405PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Suk SI, Lee CK, Min HJ, Cho KH, Oh JH (1994) Comparison of Cotrel-Dubousset pedicle screws and hooks in the treatment of idiopathic scoliosis. Int Orthop 18:341–346CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Wimmer C, Gluch H, Nogler M, Walochnik N (2001) Treatment of idiopathic scoliosis with CD-instrumentation: lumbar pedicle screws versus laminar hooks in 66 patients. Acta Orthop Scand 72:615–620CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Winter RB (1989) The idiopathic double thoracic curve pattern. Its recognition and surgical management. Spine 14:1287–1292PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Carl-Eric Aubin
    • 1
    • 2
  • Hubert Labelle
    • 2
  • Oana C. Ciolofan
    • 2
  1. 1.Mechanical Engineering DepartmentEcole PolytechniqueMontrealCanada
  2. 2.Research CenterSainte-Justine University Hospital CenterMontrealCanada

Personalised recommendations