Surgical growth guidance with non-fused anchoring segments in early-onset scoliosis
Surgical treatment of early-onset scoliosis (EOS) requires a balance between maintained curve correction and the capacity for spinal and thoracic growth. Spinal fusion creates irreversible conditions that prevent the implementation of further treatment methods. Our hypothesis was that non-fused anchors in growth guidance show a comparable outcome as the technique described in the literature, which involves spondylodesis of the anchoring segments.
This retrospective study analysed 148 surgeries in 22 EOS patients (11 female, 11 male) over a 15-year period. Patients underwent surgery with non-fused anchors and growth guidance techniques. Scoliosis, kyphosis, growth and anchoring segments were measured. For the latter, a new measuring technique was developed. Complications were recorded and classified.
The mean Cobb angle reduced from 73.5 ± 24.4° to 28.4 ± 16.2° (60.2 ± 22.9%, p < 0.001) at the last follow-up. Spinal growth T1–S1 and T1–T12 were 41.1 ± 23.3 mm and 24.9 ± 16.6 mm (p < 0.001), respectively. Growth at the cranial and caudal anchoring segment was 1.5 mm/segment/year and 1.9 mm/segment/year, respectively. A total of 63 complications were documented in 20 patients, with 40 requiring unplanned revision surgery. Definitive spondylodesis was performed in three patients.
Patients demonstrated a significant spinal growth including the anchoring segments. A comparable correction in Cobb angle and the type of complications was noted, although the rate of device-related complications was higher. No permanent impairment was reported. The rate of device-related complications is acceptable and outweighed by the significant degree of growth preservation and more flexible and individualised treatment strategy for patients with EOS.
KeywordsEarly-onset scoliosis Early-onset spinal deformities Growing rods Growth guidance Non-fusion anchoring
The authors would like to thank Anne F. Mannion for helping to prepare the manuscript, Dave O’Riordan for his assistance with statistical analysis and Susanne Fekete for the distinguished drawing.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
- 1.Mundis GM Jr, Akbarnia BA (2011) Idiopathic scoliosis: infantile and juvenile. In: Akbarnia BA, Yazici M, Thompson GH (eds) The growing spine. Management of spinal disorders in young children. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 199–212Google Scholar
- 2.Vitale MG, Wright J (2011) Outcomes in children with early onset scoliosis. In: Akbarnia BA, Yazici M, Thompson GH (eds) The growing spine. Management of spinal disorders in young children. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 547–553Google Scholar
- 6.Hall H (1961) Stapling of the Spine for Scoliosis. Proc R Soc Med 54(12):1106–1107Google Scholar
- 9.Luqué ER, Cardoso A (1977) Treatment of scoliosis without arthrodesis or external support, preliminary report. Orthop Trans 1:37–38Google Scholar
- 12.Skov ST, Wijdicks SPJ, Bünger C, Castelein RM, Li H, Kruyt MC (2018) Treatment of early-onset scoliosis with a hybrid of a concave magnetic driver (magnetic controlled growth rod) and a contralateral passive sliding rod construct with apical control: preliminary report on 17 cases. Spine J 18(1):122–129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2017.06.027 Google Scholar
- 13.Mundis GM Jr, Akbarnia BA (2011) Biomechanics in the growing spine. In: Akbarnia BA, Yazici M, Thompson GH (eds) The growing spine. Management of spinal disorders in young children. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 43–46Google Scholar
- 14.Akbarnia BA, Mundis GM Jr, Salari P (2011) Dual growing rods. In: Akbarnia BA, Yazici M, Thompson GH (eds) The growing spine. Management of spinal disorders in young children. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 449–468Google Scholar
- 16.Ruf M, Koch H, Melcher RP, Harms J (2006) Anatomic reduction and monosegmental fusion in high-grade developmental spondylolisthesis. Spine 31(3):269–274. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.brs.0000197204.91891.eb Google Scholar
- 17.Winter R (1977) Scoliosis and spinal growth. Orthop Rev 6:17–20Google Scholar
- 20.Ruf M, Harms J (2002) Pedicle screws in 1- and 2-year-old children: technique, complications, and effect on further growth. Spine 27(21):460–466. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.BRS.0000030203.48525.E3 Google Scholar
- 22.Cobb J (1948) Outline for the study of scoliosis. Am Acad Orthop Surg Instr Course Lect 5:261–275Google Scholar
- 23.Jeszenszky D (2013) Vertebral column lengthening with open wedge osteotomy in congenital bars. Practical tips, tricks, pitfalls. In: 7th international congress on early onset scoliosis and growing spine (ICEOS). San Diego, California, USAGoogle Scholar
- 24.Fekete TF, Haschtmann D, Kleinstueck F, Sutter M, Eggspuehler A, Jeszenszky D (2014) Concave side opening wedge osteotomy with growing rods for the treatment of scoliosis in young children. In: 21st international meeting on advanced spine techniques—IMAST. Valencia, SpainGoogle Scholar
- 25.Akbarnia BA, Marks DS, Boachie-Adjei O, Thompson AG, Asher MA (2005) Dual growing rod technique for the treatment of progressive early-onset scoliosis: a multicenter study. Spine 30(17 Suppl):46–57Google Scholar
- 35.Thompson GH, Akbarnia BA, Kostial P, Poe-Kochert C, Armstrong DG, Roh J et al (2005) Comparison of single and dual growing rod techniques followed through definitive surgery. Spine 30(18):2039–2044Google Scholar
- 39.Lenke LG, Betz RR, Harms J, Bridwell KH, Clements DH, Lowe TG et al (2001) Adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: a new classification to determine extent of spinal arthrodesis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 83-A(8):1169–1181Google Scholar