Surgical outcome differences between the 3D subtypes of right thoracic adolescent idiopathic scoliosis
- 150 Downloads
The current classifications of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) aim to guide surgical decision making. However, variance exists within treatment recommendations and suboptimal outcomes have been observed while following these guidelines based on two-dimensional images. We used previously developed 3D classification for right thoracic AIS patients and aimed to determine the variation in surgical decision making and the risk of suboptimal outcomes in each subtype according to our classification.
Seventy-six right thoracic AIS patients with 2-year follow-up were included retrospectively. Five 3D preoperative subgroups were determined based on a previous classification system. The upper and lower instrumented vertebrae (UIV and LIV) and the radiographic surgical outcomes at 2-year [frontal balance (FB), proximal junctional kyphosis (PJK), and adding on] were compared between the subtypes.
The fusion length and the rate of radiographic suboptimal outcomes were statistically different between the five groups. LIV at T12 in Type 1 and UIV at T2 in Type 2 were associated with improved FB and lower PJK, respectively. Type 3 had the highest rate of suboptimal FB and developing PJK. Type 4 had the longest fusion, and suboptimal FB was observed in 42% of the patients independent from the LIV level. Type 5 had the lowest rate of unsatisfactory radiographic outcomes at 2 years.
Following the preoperative 3D classification of the AIS patients, we showed that the UIV and LIV selection has a different impact on the surgical outcomes in each of the five subtypes. The proposed 3D classification has the potential for risk stratification following a posterior spinal surgery in right thoracic AIS.
KeywordsAdolescent idiopathic scoliosis 3D classification Sagittal profile Transverse plane Spinal fusion surgery
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest to disclose.
- 12.DeFrancesco CJ, Pasha S, Miller DJ, Betz RR, Clements DH, Fletcher ND, Glotzbecker MG, Hwang SW, Kelly MP, Lehman RA, Lonner BS, Newton PO, Roye BD, Sponseller PD, Upasani VV, Harms Study G, Cahill PJ (2018) Agreement between manual and computerized designation of neutral vertebra in idiopathic scoliosis. Spine Deform 6:644–650. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jspd.2018.03.001 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 15.Kim YJ, Lenke LG, Bridwell KH, Kim J, Cho SK, Cheh G, Yoon J (2007) Proximal junctional kyphosis in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis after 3 different types of posterior segmental spinal instrumentation and fusions: incidence and risk factor analysis of 410 cases. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 32:2731–2738. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e31815a7ead CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 16.Helgeson MD, Shah SA, Newton PO, Clements DH 3rd, Betz RR, Marks MC, Bastrom T, Harms Study G (2010) Evaluation of proximal junctional kyphosis in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis following pedicle screw, hook, or hybrid instrumentation. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 35:177–181. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181c77f8c CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 18.Lakhal W, Loret JE, de Bodman C, Fournier J, Bergerault F, de Courtivron B, Bonnard C (2014) The progression of lumbar curves in adolescent Lenke 1 scoliosis and the distal adding-on phenomenon. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 100:S249–254. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.otsr.2014.03.012 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar