Advertisement

European Spine Journal

, Volume 25, Issue 8, pp 2649–2656 | Cite as

Adult degenerative scoliosis: comparison of patient-rated outcome after three different surgical treatments

  • F. S. Kleinstueck
  • T. F. Fekete
  • D. Jeszenszky
  • D. Haschtmann
  • A. F. MannionEmail author
Original Article

Abstract

Purpose

Few studies have examined the effectiveness of surgical treatment for adult degenerative scoliosis (ADS) using validated patient-orientated outcome instruments. This study reports patient outcomes in a large, consecutive series of patients being treated for ADS by simple decompression (D), short fusion (SF), or long fusion (LF).

Methods

Our local spine surgery database (part of the Eurospine Spine Tango Registry) was used to acquire the data from patients with ADS undergoing D, SF or LF. Preoperatively and at 12 and 24 months follow-up (FU), patients completed the multidimensional Core Outcome Measures Index (COMI; 0–10); at FU, satisfaction and global outcome were rated on a five-point Likert scale and dichotomised as “good” and “poor”, and patient-rated complications were recorded.

Results

173 patients took part (81 D, 53 SF, 39 LF). Compared with the two fusion groups, the D group was significantly older, had more comorbidity, and had more leg pain than back pain (each p < 0.05). There were significant differences among the groups for operation duration, blood loss and general complications (each p < 0.05), in each case with the LF group showing the greatest values and the D group the lowest values. However, patient-rated complications were not significantly different between the groups (p > 0.89). Further surgery within the 2-year follow-up was required in 7 % of the D group, 15 % in SF and 28 % in LF. All groups benefited significantly from surgery with no significant differences (p > 0.05) between them: improvement in COMI after 24 months was 2.9 ± 2.8 points for D, 3.1 ± 3.3 points for SF and 3.2 ± 3.1 points for LF; a “good global outcome” was recorded for 69, 74 and 76 % patients, respectively.

Conclusions

Despite the complexity of the disease, patient-orientated outcomes after surgery for ADS were similar to those previously reported using the same outcome instruments in patients with lumbar stenosis and degenerative spondylolisthesis. The use of D, SF and LF for ADS yielded similarly good results from the patient’s perspective. This most likely reflects careful and appropriate patient selection. Further analyses are warranted to identify baseline variables predicting the 26–31 % cases in each group with a poor outcome.

Keywords

Adult degenerative scoliosis Patient-rated outcomes Decompression Fusion 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to Dave O’Riordan, Gordana Balaban, Nora Aziz-Toth, Julian Amacker, and Kirsten Clift for their valuable assistance in collecting the questionnaire data.

References

  1. 1.
    Bridwell KH, Berven S, Edwards C 2nd, Glassman S, Hamill C, Schwab F (2007) The problems and limitations of applying evidence-based medicine to primary surgical treatment of adult spinal deformity. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 32:S135–S139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Aebi M (2005) The adult scoliosis. Eur Spine J 14:925–948. doi: 10.1007/s00586-005-1053-9 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Baron EM, Berven S, Bridwell K, DeWald CJ, Hu SS, Macagno A, Mardjetko S, McAfee P, Polly DW Jr, Roach J, Weidenbaum M, Andersson GBJ, Weinstein JN (2006) Adult spinal deformity focus issue: summary statement. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 31:S202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Faldini C, Di Martino A, De Fine M, Miscione MT, Calamelli C, Mazzotti A, Perna F (2013) Current classification systems for adult degenerative scoliosis. Musculoskelet Surg 97:1–8CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lowe T, Berven SH, Schwab FJ, Bridwell KH (2006) The SRS classification for adult spinal deformity: building on the King/Moe and Lenke classification systems. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 31:S119–S125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Pritchett JW, Bortel DT (1993) Degenerative symptomatic lumbar scoliosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 18:700–703CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Grubb SA, Lipscomb HJ (1992) Diagnostic findings in painful adult scoliosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 17:518–527CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Schwab F, Farcy JP, Bridwell K, Berven S, Glassman S, Harrast J, Horton W (2006) A clinical impact classification of scoliosis in the adult. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 31:2109–2114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Schwab F, Ungar B, Blondel B, Buchowski J, Coe J, Deinlein D, Dewald C, Mehdian H, Shaffrey C, Tribus C, Lafage V (2012) SRS-Schwab adult spinal deformity classification: a validation study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 37(12):1077–1082CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Yadla S, Maltenfort MG, Ratliff JK, Harrop JS (2010) Adult scoliosis surgery outcomes: a systematic review. Neurosurg Focus 28:E3. doi: 10.3171/2009.12.FOCUS09254 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Transfeldt EE, Topp R, Mehbod AA, Winter RB (2010) Surgical outcomes of decompression, decompression with limited fusion, and decompression with full curve fusion for degenerative scoliosis with radiculopathy. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 35:1872–1875CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Silva FE, Lenke LG (2010) Adult degenerative scoliosis: evaluation and management. Neurosurg Focus 28:E1CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Mannion AF, Elfering A, Staerkle R, Junge A, Grob D, Semmer NK, Jacobshagen N, Dvorak J, Boos N (2005) Outcome assessment in low back pain: how low can you go? Eur Spine J 14:1014–1026CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Mannion AF, Porchet F, Kleinstuck FS, Lattig F, Jeszenszky D, Bartanusz V, Dvorak J, Grob D (2009) The quality of spine surgery from the patient’s perspective. Part 1: the Core Outcome Measures Index in clinical practice. Eur Spine J 18(Suppl 3):367–373CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Grob D, Mannion AF (2009) The patient’s perspective on complications after spine surgery. Eur Spine J 18:380–385CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Cho KJ, Suk SI, Park SR, Kim JH, Choi SW, Yoon YH, Won MH (2009) Arthrodesis to L5 versus S1 in long instrumentation and fusion for degenerative lumbar scoliosis. Eur Spine J 18:531–537. doi: 10.1007/s00586-009-0883-2 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Schwab F, El-Fegoun AB, Gamez L, Goodman H, Farcy JP (2005) A lumbar classification of scoliosis in the adult patient: preliminary approach. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 30:1670–1673CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Zweig T, Mannion AF, Grob D, Melloh M, Munting E, Tuschel A, Aebi M, Roder C (2009) How to Tango: a manual for implementing Spine Tango. Eur Spine J 18(Suppl 3):312–320CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kleinstuck FS, Grob D, Lattig F, Bartanusz V, Porchet F, Jeszenszky D, O’Riordan D, Mannion AF (2009) The influence of preoperative back pain on the outcome of lumbar decompression surgery. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 34:1198–1203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kleinstueck FS, Fekete TF, Mannion AF, Grob D, Porchet F, Mutter U, Jeszenszky D (2012) To fuse or not to fuse in lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis: do baseline symptoms help provide the answer? Eur Spine J 21:268–275CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kleinstueck FS, Fekete T, Jeszenszky D, Mannion AF, Grob D, Lattig F, Mutter U, Porchet F (2011) The outcome of decompression surgery for lumbar herniated disc is influenced by the level of concomitant preoperative low back pain. Eur Spine J 20:1166–1173CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Mannion AF, Porchet F, Kleinstuck FS, Lattig F, Jeszenszky D, Bartanusz V, Dvorak J, Grob D (2009) The quality of spine surgery from the patient’s perspective: part 2. Minimal clinically important difference for improvement and deterioration as measured with the Core Outcome Measures Index. Eur Spine J 18(Suppl 3):374–379CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Mannion AF, Fekete TF, O’Riordan D, Porchet F, Mutter UM, Jeszenszky D, Lattig F, Grob D, Kleinstueck FS (2013) The assessment of complications after spine surgery: time for a paradigm shift? Spine J 13(6):615–624CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Franneby U, Sandblom G, Nyren O, Nordin P, Gunnarsson U (2008) Self-reported adverse events after groin hernia repair, a study based on a national register. Value Health 11:927–932CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Bradford DS, Tay BK, Hu SS (1999) Adult scoliosis: surgical indications, operative management, complications, and outcomes. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 24:2617–2629CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Glassman SD, Schwab F, Bridwell KH, Shaffrey C, Horton W, Hu S (2009) Do 1-year outcomes predict 2-year outcomes for adult deformity surgery? Spine J 9:317–322CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Jimbo S, Kobayashi T, Aono K, Atsuta Y, Matsuno T (2012) Epidemiology of degenerative lumbar scoliosis: a community-based cohort study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 37:1763–1770CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • F. S. Kleinstueck
    • 1
  • T. F. Fekete
    • 1
  • D. Jeszenszky
    • 1
  • D. Haschtmann
    • 1
  • A. F. Mannion
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Spine Center, Schulthess KlinikZurichSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations