European Spine Journal

, Volume 21, Issue 10, pp 1920–1925 | Cite as

Increase in spinal longitudinal length by correction surgery for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis

  • Kota Watanabe
  • Naobumi Hosogane
  • Noriaki Kawakami
  • Taichi Tsuji
  • Yoshiaki Toyama
  • Kazuhiro Chiba
  • Morio Matsumoto
Original Article

Abstract

Purpose

One of the downsides of spinal correction surgery for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) is the cessation of spinal longitudinal growth within the fused levels in growing children. However, the surgery itself has the potential to increase spinal longitudinal length by correcting the curvature. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the correlation between curve correction and increased spinal longitudinal length by corrective surgery for AIS.

Methods

This study included 208 consecutive patients (14 male, 194 female) with AIS who underwent posterior or anterior correction and fusion surgeries. Mean age at the time of surgery was 15.7 ± 3.3 years (range 10–20 years). Patients with hyperkyphosis of more than 40° were excluded. All patients had main curves in the thoracic spine (Lenke type 1 or 2). Forty-three patients underwent anterior spinal correction and fusion (ASF) and 164 underwent posterior spinal correction and fusion (PSF). The mean preoperative height was 154.7 ± 6.9 cm (range 133–173 cm). Pre and postoperative PA standing X-ray films were used to measure the Cobb angle and spinal length between the end vertebrae of the main thoracic curve, and between T1 and L5. The patients were divided into ASF and PSF groups, within which correlations between the Cobb angle correction and spinal length increase were evaluated.

Results

In the ASF group, the mean preoperative Cobb angle of the main thoracic curve was 54.9 ± 8.3° (range 41–83°) and it was corrected to 19.7 ± 9.5° (range 0–47°) with a mean correction of 35.2 ± 11.1° (range 10–74°) after surgery. The mean increase in the length of the main thoracic curve was 1.5 ± 4.6 mm (range −8 to 13 mm), and the mean increase in T1–L5 length was 16.6 ± 7.7 mm (range −3 to 51 mm). Significant correlation between the correction of the Cobb angle and increase in T1–L5 length was observed, with a correlation coefficient of 0.44. In the PSF group, the mean preoperative Cobb angle of the main thoracic curve was 58.8 ± 11.6° (range 36–107°) and it was corrected to 17.1 ± 7.6° (range 10–49°), with a mean correction of 41.7 ± 10.2° (range 21–73°) after surgery. The mean increase in the length of the main thoracic curve was 14.0 ± 5.2 mm (range 0–42 mm), and the mean increase in T1–L5 length was 32.4 ± 10.8 mm (10–61 mm). Correlation between the correction of the Cobb angle and increase in T1–L5 length was high, with a correlation coefficient of 0.64. The increase in T1–L5 length could be calculated by the following formula based on linear regression analysis: increase in T1–L5 length (mm) = correction of the Cobb angle (º) × 0.77.

Conclusion

Spinal longitudinal length was significantly increased after surgery in both the ASF and PSF groups. Correction of the Cobb angle and increase in T1–L5 length were highly correlated with each other, especially in the PSF group.

Keywords

Adolescent idiopathic scoliosis Posterior correction with fusion surgery Anterior correction with fusion surgery Spinal length 

Notes

Conflict of interest

None.

References

  1. 1.
    Letts RM, Bobechko WP (1974) Fusion of the scoliotic spine in young children. Clin Orthop Relat Res:136–145Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hefti FL, McMaster MJ (1983) The effect of the adolescent growth spurt on early posterior spinal fusion in infantile and juvenile idiopathic scoliosis. J Bone Joint Surg Br 65:247–254PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Winter R (1977) Scoliosis and spinal growth. Orthop Rev 6:17–20Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ylikoski M (2003) Height of girls with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Eur Spine J 12:288–291. doi: 10.1007/s00586-003-0527-x PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Stokes IA (2008) Stature and growth compensation for spinal curvature. Stud Health Technol Inform 140:48–51PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bjure J, Grimby G, Nachemson A (1968) Correction of body height in predicting spirometric values in scoliotic patients. Scand J Clin Lab Invest 21:191–192PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Helms P, Bain SH, Warner JO (1986) Foot and hand length for prediction of vital capacity in scoliotic children. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 11:746–748CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hepper NG, Black LF, Fowler WS (1965) Relationships of lung volume to height and arm span in normal subjects and in patients with spinal deformity. Am Rev Respir Dis 91:356–362PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Linderholm H, Lindgren U (1978) Prediction of spirometric values in patients with scoliosis. Acta Orthop Scand 49:469–474PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Torres LA, Martinez FE, Manco JC (2003) Correlation between standing height, sitting height, and arm span as an index of pulmonary function in 6 to10-year-old children. Pediatr Pulmonol 36:202–208. doi: 10.1002/ppul.10239 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Brookenthal KR (2002) Loss of height in scoliosis due to degree of curvature. Scoliosis Res Soc:Exhibit 15Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Vedantam R, Lenke LG, Bridwell KH, Haas J, Linville DA (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) 25:82–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Cheung KM, Luk KD (1997) Prediction of correction of scoliosis with use of the fulcrum bending radiograph. J Bone Joint Surg Am 79:1144–1150PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Takahashi S, Passuti N, Delecrin J (1997) Interpretation and utility of traction radiography in scoliosis surgery. Analysis of patients treated with Cotrel–Dubousset instrumentation. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 22:2542–2546CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Watanabe K, Kawakami N, Nishiwaki Y, Goto M, Tsuji T, Obara T, Imagama S, Matsumoto M (2007) Traction versus supine side-bending radiographs in determining flexibility: what factors influence these techniques? Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 32:2604–2609. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e318158cbcb

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kota Watanabe
    • 2
  • Naobumi Hosogane
    • 1
  • Noriaki Kawakami
    • 3
  • Taichi Tsuji
    • 3
  • Yoshiaki Toyama
    • 1
  • Kazuhiro Chiba
    • 1
  • Morio Matsumoto
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Orthopedic SurgeryKeio University School of MedicineTokyoJapan
  2. 2.Department of Advanced Therapy for Spine and Spinal Cord DisordersKeio University School of MedicineTokyoJapan
  3. 3.Department of Orthopaedic SurgeryMeijo HospitalNagoyaJapan

Personalised recommendations