Selective thoracic fusion in AIS curves: the definition of target outcomes improves the prediction of spontaneous lumbar curve correction (SLCC)
- 760 Downloads
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).
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.
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°.
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.
KeywordsScoliosis surgery Selective thoracic fusion Anterior fusion Spontaneous lumbar curve correction Prediction
Conflict of interest
- 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
- 5.Newton PO, Upasani VV (2010) Surgical treatment of the right thoracic curve pattern. Thieme, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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.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.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.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.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.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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 65.Zarzycki D, Potaczek T, Gaines RW (2011) 46th Annual SRS meeting, Louisville/USAGoogle Scholar