Advertisement

Use of a novel corrective device for correction of deformities in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis

  • Iain FeeleyEmail author
  • Andrew Hughes
  • Noelle Cassidy
  • Connor Green
Original Article
  • 9 Downloads

Abstract

Background

Adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS), with an incidence of 3%, is a common deformity. Correction of severe curvature of the deformity has attracted much investigation to achieve safe, reproducible results. We present our experience with a novel device for the correction of deformities across a spectrum of curve types, the rod link reducer. This system allows direct visualization of a mass derotation to achieve deformity correction.

Methods

Prospective cohort study of patients with severe AIS treated in our institution during 2017 with major TL/L curves. Pre- and postoperative Cobb angles and coronal balance; operative time; and estimated blood loss, fusion levels, and screw density were recorded. Our results were split between those with a Lenke A/B classification and Lenke C, with a goal of correction of curve in the former and achieving good coronal balance with a preservation of distal motion segments in the latter.

Results

There were 31 patients enrolled in our series. Within the Lenke A/B group, there were 18 patients, achieving a mean correction of 56% (SD 10%) and a correction of a mean coronal balance of 14.5 mm (SD 12.5 mm) of C7 from the CSVL to 10.9 mm (SD 10.6 mm). Our screw density was 1.3 screws (SD 0.1) per vertebrae fused. Our operative time was 185 min (SD 38 min). Average recorded blood loss was 721 ml (SD 289). In our Lenke C cohort, preoperative and postoperative mean Cobb angles (SD) were 73.3 (13.4) and 33.8 (11.9), respectively, with an average correction of 54% (SD 11%). The mean (SD) operative time was 03:35 (SD 00:35). Fusion levels were over a mean of 12.1 (SD 1.7) vertebrae, with a screw density of 1.3 (SD 0.1) per level. Mean intraoperative blood loss was 829 ml (SD 355). No patient received an allogenic blood transfusion. There were no adverse neurological events in this patient cohort.

Conclusions

The link rod system allows for excellent correction of spinal deformity and a short operative time.

Keywords

AIS Novel device Scoliosis 

Notes

Open access

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits non-commercial use, reproduction, and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

Two authors report grants from Globus Medical outside the submitted work, as contributors to the Research Fund at our institution. Globus Medical manufactured the Link Rod System. Other authors have no disclosures to make.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. Institutional Review Board approval was obtained before initiation of this study.

Informed consent

Not required. Only general non-identifiable data on a series of patients is included in this work.

References

  1. 1.
    Lee S-M, Suk S-I, Chung E-R (2004) Direct vertebral rotation: a new technique of three-dimensional deformity correction with segmental pedicle screw fixation in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Spine 29(3):343–349CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Harrington PR (1962) Treatment of scoliosis: correction and internal fixation by spine instrumentation. JBJS 44(4):591–634CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Liljenqvist U et al (2001) Pullout strength of pedicle screws versus pedicle and laminar hooks in the thoracic spine. Acta Orthop Belg 67(2):157–163Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Liljenqvist U, Lepsien U, Hackenberg L, Niemeyer T, Halm H (2002) Comparative analysis of pedicle screw and hook instrumentation in posterior correction and fusion of idiopathic thoracic scoliosis. Eur Spine J 11(4):336–343CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lehman RA Jr, Lenke LG, Keeler KA, Kim YJ, Buchowski JM, Cheh G, Kuhns CA, Bridwell KH (2008) Operative treatment of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis with posterior pedicle screw-only constructs: minimum three-year follow-up of one hundred fourteen cases. Spine 33(14):1598–1604CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Luhmann SJ, Lenke LG, Kim YJ, Bridwell KH, Schootman M (2005) Thoracic adolescent idiopathic scoliosis curves between 70° and 100°: is anterior release necessary? Spine 30(18):2061–2067CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    de Jonge TS, Dubousset JF, Illes TS (2002) Sagittal plane correction in idiopathic scoliosis. Spine 27(7):754–760CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Senkoylu A, Cetinkaya M (2017) Correction manoeuvres in the surgical treatment of spinal deformities. EFORT Open Rev 2(5):135–140Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Charles YP et al (2012) Sagittal balance correction of idiopathic scoliosis using the in situ contouring technique. Eur Spine J 21(10):1950–1956CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Pizones J et al (2015) Ponte osteotomies to treat major thoracic adolescent idiopathic scoliosis curves allow more effective corrective maneuvers. Eur Spine J 24(7):1540–1546CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cho K-J, Bridwell KH, Lenke LG, Berra A, Baldus C (2005) Comparison of Smith-Petersen versus pedicle subtraction osteotomy for the correction of fixed sagittal imbalance. Spine 30(18):2030–2037CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Martin CT et al (2014) Increasing hospital charges for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis in the United States. Spine. 39(20):1676–1682Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Jaquith BP et al (2012) Screws versus hooks: implant cost and deformity correction in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. J Child Orthop 6(2):137–143Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Halanski MA, Cassidy JA (2013) Do multilevel Ponte osteotomies in thoracic idiopathic scoliosis surgery improve curve correction and restore thoracic kyphosis? Clin Spine Surg 26(5):252–255Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Larson AN et al (2016) What would be the annual cost savings if fewer screws were used in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis treatment in the US? J Neurosurg Spine 24(1):116–123Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Wei X-z et al (2017) Key vertebral pedicle screw strategy for the correction of flexible Lenke type 1 adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: a preliminary study of a 5-year minimum radiographic follow-up. Spine. 42(16):1226–1232Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Shen M et al (2017) Comparison of low density and high density pedicle screw instrumentation in Lenke 1 adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 18(1):336Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Zhang H, Sucato D, Globus Medical Inc (2016) Spinal rod link reducer. U.S. Patent 9,408,641Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lenke LG (2005) Lenke classification system of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: treatment recommendations. Instr Course Lect 54:537–542Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kim YJ, Lenke LG (2005) Thoracic pedicle screw placement: free-hand technique. Neurol India 53(4):512–519CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Le Navéaux F et al (2015) Implant distribution in surgically instrumented Lenke 1 adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: does it affect curve correction? Spine 40(7):462–468Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Weinstein SL, Dolan LA, Cheng JCY, Danielsson A, Morcuende JA (2008) Adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Lancet 371(9623):1527–1537CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Westrick ER, Ward WT (2011) Adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: 5-year to 20-year evidence-based surgical results. J Pediatr Orthop 31:S61–S68Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Wozniczka JK et al (2017) Adolescent idiopathic scoliosis thoracic volume modeling: the effect of surgical correction. J Pediatr Orthop 37(8):e512–e518Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Nohara A et al (2018) Intervertebral disc degeneration during postoperative follow-up more than 10 years after corrective surgery in idiopathic scoliosis: comparison between patients with and without surgery. Spine. 43(4):255–261Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Lam GC et al (2008) Vertebral rotation measurement: a summary and comparison of common radiographic and CT methods. Scoliosis 3(1):16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Larson AN et al (2014) Does higher anchor density result in increased curve correction and improved clinical outcomes in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis? Spine 39(7):571–578Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Roach JW, Mehlman CT, Sanders JO (2011) Does the outcome of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis surgery justify the rising cost of the procedures. J Pediatr Orthop 31:S77–S80Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Hwang CJ et al (2011) Minimum 5-year follow-up results of skipped pedicle screw fixation for flexible idiopathic scoliosis. J Neurosurg Spine 15(2):146–150Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Li J et al (2016) Key-vertebral screws strategy for main thoracic curve correction in patients with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Clin Spine Surg 29(8):E434–E441Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Minhas SV, Chow I, Bosco J, Otsuka NY (2015) Assessing the rates, predictors, and complications of blood transfusion volume in posterior arthrodesis for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Spine 40(18):1422–1430CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Sethna NF et al (2005) Tranexamic acid reduces intraoperative blood loss in pediatric patients undergoing scoliosis surgery. Anesthesiology 102(4):727–732CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Kwan MK, Chiu CK, Chan CYW (2017) Single vs two attending senior surgeons: assessment of intra-operative blood loss at different surgical stages of posterior spinal fusion surgery in Lenke 1 and 2 adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Eur Spine J 26(1):155–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Thompson ME, Kohring JM, McFann K, McNair B, Hansen JK, Miller NH (2014) Predicting excessive hemorrhage in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis patients undergoing posterior spinal instrumentation and fusion. Spine J 14(8):1392–1398CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Lehman RA Jr, Lenke LG, Keeler KA, Kim YJ, Cheh G (2007) Computed tomography evaluation of pedicle screws placed in the pediatric deformed spine over an 8-year period. Spine 32(24):2679–2684CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Parent S, Odell T, Oka R, Mahar A, Newton P (2008) Does the direction of pedicle screw rotation affect the biomechanics of direct transverse plane vertebral derotation? Spine 33(18):1966–1969CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Göçen S et al (1998) Evaluation of computed tomographic methods to measure vertebral rotation in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: an intraobserver and interobserver analysis. J Spinal Disord 11(3):210-214Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Royal Academy of Medicine in Ireland 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Cappagh National Orthopaedic HospitalDublinIreland
  2. 2.Children’s University Hospital Temple StDublinIreland

Personalised recommendations