Advertisement

European Spine Journal

, Volume 23, Issue 6, pp 1263–1281 | Cite as

Selective thoracic fusion in AIS curves: the definition of target outcomes improves the prediction of spontaneous lumbar curve correction (SLCC)

  • Heiko Koller
  • Oliver Meier
  • Heidrun Albrecht
  • Rene Schmidt
  • Juliane Zenner
  • Wolfgang Hitzl
Original Article

Abstract

Introduction

The decision of when to use selective thoracic fusion (STF) and the prediction of spontaneous lumbar curve correction (SLCC) remain difficult. Using a novel methodological approach, the authors yielded for a better prediction of SLCC and analyzed the efficacy of anterior scoliosis correction and fusion (ASF).

Methods

A retrospective analysis of 273 patients treated with ASF for STF was performed. In total, 87 % of the patients showed a Lenke 1 curve pattern. The lumbar curve modifier was classified as A in 66 % of the patients, B in 21 % of the patients and C in 13 % of the patients. The fusion length averaged 6.7 levels. The analysis included an assessment of radiographic deformity and correction, surgery characteristics, complications and revisions and clinical outcomes to improve the prediction of SLCC. Patients with a Type A-L, Type B or Type C modifier were stratified into a target follow-up lumbar curve (LC) category of ≤20° or >20°. Linear regression analyses were performed to assess the accuracy of predicting LC magnitude, and a multivariate logistic regression model was built using the following preoperative (preop) predictors: main thoracic curve (MTC), LC, MTC-bending and LC-bending. The output variable indicated whether a patient had an LC >20° at follow-up. A variable selection algorithm was applied to identify significant predictors. Two thresholds (cut-offs) were applied to the test sample to create high positive and negative prediction values. The data from 33 additional patients were gathered prospectively to create an independent test sample to learn how the model performed with independent data as a test of the generalizability of the model.

Results

The average patient age was 17 years, and the average follow-up period was 33 months. The MTC was 53.1° ± 10.2° preoperatively, 29.8° ± 10.5° with bending and was 25.4° ± 9.7° at follow-up (p < 0.01). The LC was 35.7° ± 7.5° preoperatively, 8.9° ± 5.8° with bending, and 21.8° ± 7.0° at follow-up (p < 0.01). After applying a variable selection algorithm, the preop LC [p < 0.02, odds ratio (OR) = 1.09] and preop LC-bending (p < 0.009, OR = 1.14) remained in the model as significant predictors. The performance of the linear regression model was tested in an independent test sample, and the difference between the observed and predicted values was only 1° ± 4.5°. Based on the test sample, the lower threshold was set to 25 %, and the upper threshold was set to 75 %. Patients with prediction values of 25–75 % were identified by the model, but by definition of the model, no prediction was made. In the test sample, 87 % of the patients were correctly classified as having an LC ≤20° at follow-up, and 84 % of the patients were correctly classified as having an LC >20°. The model test in the independent test sample revealed that 100 % of the patients were correctly classified as having an LC ≤20°, and 86 % of the patients were correctly classified as having an LC >20°.

Conclusion

After analyzing a sufficiently large sample of 273 patients who underwent ASF for STF, significant predictors for SLCC were established and reported according to the surgical outcomes. Application of the prediction models can aid surgeons in the decision-making process regarding when to perform STF. Our results indicate that with stratification of outcomes into target curves (e.g., an LC <20°), future benchmarks for STF might be more conclusive.

Keywords

Scoliosis surgery Selective thoracic fusion Anterior fusion Spontaneous lumbar curve correction Prediction 

Notes

Conflict of interest

None.

References

  1. 1.
    Edwards CC, Lenke LG, Peelle M, Sides B, Rinella A, Bridwell KH (2004) Selective thoracic fusion for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis with C modifier lumbar curves: 2- to 16-years radiographic and clinical results. Spine 29:536–546PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Min K, Haefeli M, Mueller D, Klammer G, Hahn F (2012) Anterior short correction in thoracic adolescent idiopathic scoliosis with mini-open thoracotomy approach: prospective clinical radiological and pulmonary function results. Eur Spine J Suppl 6: S765–S772Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Newton PO, Yaszay B, Upasani VV et al (2010) Preservation of thoracic kyphosis is critical to maintain lumbar lordosis in the surgical treatment of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Spine 35:1365–1370PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Yong MO, Izat MT, Adam CJ, Labrom RD, Askin GN (2012) Secondary curve behaviour in Lenke Type 1C adolescent idiopathic scoliosis after thoracoscopic selective anterior thoracic fusion. Spine 37:1965–1974PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Newton PO, Upasani VV (2010) Surgical treatment of the right thoracic curve pattern. Thieme, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Tis JE, O’Bien MF, Newton PO, Lenke LG, Clements DH, Harms J, Betz RR (2009) Adolescent idiopathic scoliosis treated with open instrumented anterior spinal fusion—Five-year follow-up. Spine 35:64–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ruiz J, Gabriel L, Hee Kit, W (2012) Does surgery and surgical technique affect patient outcome in thoracic idiopathic scoliosis ? Comparison of anterior and posterior surgery with non-operated and normal control. 19th IMAST, Istanbul/TurkeyGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lonner BS, Auerbach JD, Estreicher M, Milby AH, Kean KE (2009) Video-assisted thoracoscopic spinal fusion compared with posterior spinal fusion with thoracic pedicle screws for thoracic adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. JBJS Am 91:398–408PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Letko L, Ruf M, Harms J (2012) Sagittal and coronal plane decompensation: Comparison of 52 Lenke 1 AIS patients treated with 2nd generation ASF vs PSF techniques 2 years postop. 19th IMAST, Istanbul/TurkeyGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Potter BK, Kuklo TR, Lenke LG (2005) Radiographic outcomes of anterior spinal fusion versus posterior spinal fusion with thoracic pedicle screws for treatment of Lenke Type I adolescent idiopathic scoliosis curves. Spine 30:1859–1866PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Patel PN, Upasani VV, Bastrom TP, Marks MC, Pawelek JB, Betz RR, Lenke LG, Newton PO (2008) Spontaneous lumbar curve correction in selective thoracic fusions of idiopathic scoliosis: a comparison of anterior and posterior approaches. Spine 33:1068–1073PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Betz RR, Harms J, Clements D, Lenke L, Low T, Shufflebarger HL, Jeszensky D, Beele B (1999) Comparison of anterior and posterior instrumentation for correction of adolescent thoracic idiopathic scoliosis. Spine 24:225–239PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kuklo TR, O’Brien MF, Lenke LG, Polly DW, Sucato DS, Richards BS, Lubicky J, Ibrahim K, Kawakami N, King A (2006) Comparison of the lowest instrumented, stable, and lower end vertebrae in “single overhang” thoracic adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: anterior versus posterior spinal fusion. Spine 31:2232–2236PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Muschik MT, Kimmich H, Demmel T (2006) Comparison of anterior and posterior double-rod instrumentation for thoracic idiopathic scoliosis: results of 141 patients. Eur Spine J 15:1128–1138PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Dobbs BD, Lenke L, Yongjung JK, Kamath G, Peelle MW, Bridwell KH (2006) Selective posterior thoracic fusions for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Spine 31:2400–2404PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Larson AN, Fletcher N, Richards BS (2011) Lumbar curve is stable after selective thoracic fusion for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: a 20-year follow-up. Spine 37:833–839CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Chang K-W, Leng X, Zhao W, Chen Y-Y, Chen T-C, Chang K-I (2011) Broader curve criteria for selective thoracic fusion. Spine 36:1658–1664PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Leroux J, Mac-Thiong J-M, Labelle H, Parent S (2011) Post-operative changes in coronal balance after surgical correction of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis using pedicle screw constructs. IMAST 2011, KopenhagenGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Luk KD, Lee FB, Leong JC, Hsu LC (1987) The effect on the lumbosacral spine of long spinal fusion for idiopathic scoliosis. A minimum 10-year follow-up. Spine 12:996–1000PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ouellet JA, Johnston CE 2nd (2002) Effect of grafting technique on the maintenance of coronal and sagittal correction in anterior treatment of scoliosis. Spine 27:2129–2135PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Schwab F, Dubey A, Gamez L, El Fegoun AB, Hwang K, Pagala M, Farcy JP (2002) Adult scoliosis: a quantitative radiographic and clinical analysis. Spine 27:387–392PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ilharreborde B, Morel E, Mazda K, DeKutoski MB (2009) Adjacent segment disease after instrumented fusion for idiopathic scoliosis. J Spinal Disord 22:530–539CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Fabricant PD, Admoni S, Ipp LS, Green DW, Widmann RF (2011) Are patients participating in sports after posterior spine fusion for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis? Distal level of fusion correlates with postoperative activity level. 46th SRS annual meeting Louisville/USAGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Lee MC, Õunpuu S, Solomito M, Smith BG, Thomson JD (2013) Loss in spinal motion from inclusion of a single midlumbar level in posterior spinal fusion for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Spine 38:E1405–E1410PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Marks M, Newton PO, Petcharaporn M, Bastrom TP, Shah S, Betz R, Lonner B, Miyanji F (2012) Postoperative segmental motion of the unfused spine distal to the fusion in 100 patients with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Spine 37:826–832PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Green DW, Lawhorne TW, Widmann RF, Kepler CK, Ahern C, Mintz DN, Rawlins BA, Burke SW, Boachi-Adjei O (2011) Long-term magnetic resonance imaging follow-up demonstrates minimal transitional level lumbar disc degeneration after posterior spine fusion for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Spine 36:1948–1954PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Auerbach JD, Lonner BS, Errico TJ, Freeman A, Goerke D, Beaubien BP (2012) Quantification of intradiscal pressures below thoracolumbar spinal fusion constructs. Spine 37:359–366PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Buttermann GR, Beaubien BP (2008) In vitro disc pressure profiles below scoliosis fusion constructs. Spine 33:2134–2142PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Sitte I, Kathrein A, Pfaller K Prof, Pedross F, Klosterhuber M, Lindtner R, Zenner J, Ferraris L, Meier O, Koller H (2013) Morphological differences in adult idiopathic scoliosis: a histological and ultrastructural investigation. Spine E-Pub Jun 11Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Nohara A, Kawakami N, Seki K, Kazuyoshi M, Tsuji T, Saito T, Kawakami K (2011) The effects on the lumbar disc degeneration of spinal fusion for scoliosis patients—a minimum ten-year follow-up. 46th annual SRS meeting, Louisville/USAGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Yaszay B, Asgahr J, Bastrom TP, Smdani A, Sturm P, Betz RR, Shufflebarger HL, Newton PO (2012) Determining optimal post-operative coronal parameters for selective thoracic fusion. 19th IMAST, Istanbul/TurkeyGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Bergoin M (2013) Anterior instrumentation (dual screws single rod system) for the surgical treatment of idiopathic scoliosis in the lumbar are: a prospective study on 33 adolescents and young adults, based on a new system of classification. Eur Spine J 22(Suppl 2): S149–S163Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Yazici M, Cil A, Pekmezci M, Acaroglu E (2005) The effect on the lumbosacral spine of long spinal fusion for idiopathic scoliosis. A minimum 10-year follow-up. 40th annual meeting of SRS, Miami/USAGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Kusakabe T, Gaines RW (2008) Results of short bone-on-bone instrumentation for single curve adolescent idiopathic scoliosis after mean follow-up of 6 years. IMAST, HongkongGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Jansen RC, Rhijn LW, Duinkerke E, Ooij A (2007) Predictability of the spontaneous lumbar curve correction after selective thoracic fusion in idiopathic scoliosis. Eur Spine J 16:1335–1342PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Sweet FA, Lenke LG, Bridwell KH, Blanke KM, Whorton J (2001) Prospective radiographic and clinical outcomes and complications of single solid rod instrumented anterior spinal fusion in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Spine 26:1956–1965PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Miyanji F, Pawelek JB, Van Valin SE, Upasani VV, Newton PO (2008) Is the lumbar modifier useful in surgical decision making?: defining two distinct Lenke 1A curve patterns. Spine 33:2545–2551PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Glassmann SD, Hamill CL, Bridwell KH, Schwab FJ, Dimar JR, Lowe TG (2007) The impact of perioperative complications on clinical outcome in adult deformity surgery. Spine 32:2764–2770CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Faldini C, Leonetti D, Nanni M, Di Martino A, Denaro L, Denaro V, Giannini S (2010) Cervical disc herniation and cervical spondylosis surgically treated by Cloward procedure: a 10-year-minimum follow-up study. J Orthop Traumatol 11:99–103PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Schulte TL, Liljenqvist U, Hierholzer E, Bullmann V, Halm HF, Lauber S, Hackenberg L (2006) Spontaneous correction and derotation of secondary curves after selective anterior fusion of idiopathic scoliosis. Spine 31:315–321PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Lenke LG, Betz RR, Bridwell KH et al (1999) Spontaneous lumbar curve coronal correction after selective anterior or posterior thoracic fusion in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Spine 24:1663–1671PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Mason DE, Schindler A, King N (1998) Estimation of the lumbar curve magnitude with correction of the right thoracic curve in idiopathic scoliosis. J Pediatr Orthop 18:602–605PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Abel MF, Herndon SK, Sauer LD, Novicoff WM, Smith JS, Shaffrey CI (2011) Selective versus nonselective fusion for idiopathic scoliosis: does lumbosacral takeoff angle change? Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 36:1103–1112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Takahashi J, Newton PO, Ugrinow V, Bastrom TP (2011) Selective thoracic fusion in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Spine 36:1131–1141PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Abel MF, Herndon SK, Sauer LD, Novicoff WM, Smith JS, Shaffrey CI (2011) Selective versus nonselective fusion for idiopathic scoliosis—does lumbosacral takeoff angle change? Spine 36:1103–1112PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Fischer CR, Kim Y (2011) Selective fusion for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: a review of current operative strategy. Eur Spine J 20:1048–1057PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Liljenqvist U, Halm H, Bullmann V (2013) Spontaneous lumbar curve correction in selective anterior instrumentation and fusion of idiopathic thoracic scoliosis of Lenke type C. Eur Spine J 22(Suppl 2):S138–S148Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Izatt MT, Adam JC, Labrom RD, Askin GN (2010) The relationship between deformity correction and clinical outcomes after thoracoscopic scoliosis surgery. Spine 35(26):E1577–E1585PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Biscevic M, Hamzaoglu A, Zjakic A, Ozturk C, Alanay A, Smrke D (2012) The curve decompensation after anterior instrumentation of scoliosis by VDS—follow-up of 10 years. 19th IMAST, Istanbul/TurkeyGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Izatt MT, Harvey JR, Adam CJ, Fender D, Labrom RD, Askin GN (2006) Recovery of pulmonary function following endoscopic anterior scoliosis correction: evaluation at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months after surgery. Spine 31:2469–2477PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Yoon SH, Ugrinow VL, Upasani VV, Pawelek JB, Newton PO (2008) Comparison between 4.0-mm stainless steel and 4.75-mm titanium alloy single-rod spinal instrumentation for anterior thoracoscopic scoliosis surgery. Spine 33:2173–2178PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Liljenqvist U, Bullmann V, Schulter TL et al (2006) Anterior dual rod instrumentation in idiopathic thoracic scoliosis. Eur Spine J 15:1118–1127PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Koller H, Fierlbeck J, Auffarth A, Niederberger A, Stephan D, Hitzl W, Augat P, Zenner J, Blocher M, Blocher M, Resch H, Mayer M (2014) Impact of constrained dual-screw anchorage on holding strength and the resistance to cyclic loading in anterior spinal deformity surgery: a comparative biomechanical study. Spine 9:E390–E398Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    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–S281PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Bridwell KH, McAllister JW, Betz RR et al (1991) Coronal decompensation produced by Cotrel-Dubousset “derotation” maneuver for idiopathic right thoracic scoliosis. Spine 16:769–777PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Richards BS (1992) Lumbar curve response in type II idiopathic scoliosis after posterior instrumentation of the thoracic curve. Spine 17:S282–S286PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Se-II Suk, Lee S-M, Chung E-R, Kim J-H, Kim S-S (2005) Selective thoracic fusion with segmental pedicle screw fixation in the treatment of thoracic idiopathic scoliosis. Spine 30:1602–1609CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Chang MS, Bridwell KH, Lenke LG, Cho W, Baldus C, Auerbach JD, Crawford CH, O’Shaugnessy BA (2010) Predicting the outcome of selective thoracic fusion in false double major lumbar “C” cases with five- to twenty-four-year follow-up. Spine 35:2128–2133PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Samdani AF, Tantorski M, Cahill P, Nydick J, Fine A, Betz RR, Antonacci MD (2011) Cervical sagittal plane decompensation after surgery for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: an effect imparted by postoperative thoracic hypokyphosis. J Neurosurg Spine 15:491–496PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Canavese F, Turcot K, De Rosa V, de Coulon G, Kaelin A (2011) Cervical spine sagittal alignment variations following posterior spinal fusion and instrumentation for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Eur Spine J 20:1141–1148PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Ilharreborde B, Vidal C, Skalli W, Mazda K (2012) Sagittal alignment of the cervical spine in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis treated by posteromedial translation. Eur Spine J 22:330–337PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Roussouly P, Labelle H, Rouissi J, Bodin A (2012) Pre- and postoperative sagittal balance in idiopathic scoliosis: a comparison over the ages of two cohorts of 132 adolescents and 52 adults. Eur Spine J Suppl 2:S203–S215Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Sudo H, Ito M, Kaneda K, Shono Y, Takahata M, Abumi K (2013) Long-term outcomes of anterior spinal fusion for treating thoracic adolescent idiopathic scoliosis curves. Spine 38:819–826PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Kusakabe T, Mehta JS, Gaines RW (2011) Short segment bone-one-bone instrumentation for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Spine 36:1123–1130PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Zarzycki D, Potaczek T, Gaines RW (2011) 46th Annual SRS meeting, Louisville/USAGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Koller H, Zenner J, Hitzl W, Meier O, Ferraris L, Acosta F, Hempfing A (2010) The morbidity of open transthoracic approach for anterior scoliosis correction. Spine 35:1586–1592CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Newton PO, Marks MC, Bastrom TP, Betz R, Clements D, Lonner B, Crawford A, Shufflebarger H, O′Brien M, Yaszay B, Harms Study Group (2013) Surgical treatment of Lenke 1 main thoracic idiopathic scoliosis: results of a prospective, multicenter study. Spine 38:328–338PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Wang Y, Bünger CE, Zhang Y, Wu C, Hansen ES (2012) Postoperative spinal alignment remodeling in Lenke 1C scoliosis treated with selective thoracic fusion. Spine J 12:73–80PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Heiko Koller
    • 1
    • 4
  • Oliver Meier
    • 1
  • Heidrun Albrecht
    • 1
  • Rene Schmidt
    • 3
  • Juliane Zenner
    • 1
  • Wolfgang Hitzl
    • 2
  1. 1.Center for Spine SurgeryWerner-Wicker-KlinikBad WildungenGermany
  2. 2.Research Office, BiostatisticsParacelsus Medical UniversitySalzburgAustria
  3. 3.Department for Orthopedic and Trauma SurgeryUniversity Medical CenterMannheimGermany
  4. 4.Department of Traumatoloy and Sports InjuriesParacelsus Medical UniversitySalzburgAustria

Personalised recommendations