Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery

, Volume 137, Issue 5, pp 631–635 | Cite as

Posterior elements disruption with hybrid constructs in AIS patients: is there an impact on proximal junctional kyphosis?

  • S. Ghailane
  • Sebastien Pesenti
  • E. Peltier
  • E. Choufani
  • B. Blondel
  • J. L. Jouve
Orthopaedic Surgery
  • 360 Downloads

Abstract

Purpose

Proximal junctional kyphosis (PJK) is a frequent proximal adjacent segment disease following spinal fusion in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) and its rate has been estimated to 28% in the literature. The etiology is multifactorial, and risk factors associated with PJK are controversial. The aim of this study was to demonstrate that the disruption of muscular and bony tissue above the upper instrumented vertebra (UIV) during surgery does not increase the rate of PJK in patients undergoing posterior fusion for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis.

Material and method

50 patients with AIS operated between June 2014 and January 2016 were included. Every patient underwent a long posterior spine arthrodesis with a hybrid construct (proximal lamino-laminar claw, thoracic sublaminar bands and lumbar screws). The dissection of posterior elements above the UIV was necessary for the placement of proximal anchors. Radiographic analysis including proximal junctional angle, spino-pelvic parameters (cervical lordosis, thoracic kyphosis TK, lumbar lordosis, pelvic incidence, pelvic tilt, sacral slope) and sagittal vertical axis were collected preoperatively and postoperatively at the last control. The numbers of fused levels, locations of upper instrumented vertebra, locations of lower instrumented vertebra, length of fusion segments were also recorded. Multiple odd ratios and other statistical analysis were performed to evaluate the relation between PJK and the potential risk factors.

Results

There were 43 females and 7 males with a mean age of 14.8 years at surgery. PJK occurred in 5 out of 50 cases with an incidence of 10%. The mean follow-up was 18 months. There was no significant difference in gender (OR 1.36, p = 0.8), decrease of TK (OR 1.63, p = 0 0.69), location of UIV (OR 2.25, p = 0.4), LIV (OR 2, p = 0.55), and SVA change (OR 1.63, p = 0.46).

Conclusions

The disruption of ligamentous and bony tissue proximal to the UIV during the surgery does not increase the rate of PJK.

Level of evidence IV.

Keywords

Adolescent idiopathic scoliosis Proximal junctional angle Proximal junctional kyphosis Risk factors Ligamentous disruption 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

Authors declare no conflict of interest for this work.

Funding

SP received a grant from the French Society of Orthopedics and Traumatology (SOFCOT) for this work.

References

  1. 1.
    Cahill PJ, Wang W, Asghar J, Booker R, Betz RR, Ramsey C et al (2012) The use of a transition rod may prevent proximal junctional kyphosis in the thoracic spine after scoliosis surgery: a finite element analysis. Spine 37(12):E687–E695. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e318246d4f2 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cammarata M, Aubin CE, Wang X, Mac-Thiong JM (2014) Biomechanical risk factors for proximal junctional kyphosis: a detailed numerical analysis of surgical instrumentation variables. Spine 39(8):E500–E507. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000000222 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cammarata M, Wang X, Mac-Thiong JM, Ce A (2012) Biomechanical analysis of proximal junctional kyphosis: preliminary results. Stud Health Technol Inform 76:299–302Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cecchinato R, Berjano P, Bassani R, Lamartina C (2015) Osteotomies in proximal junctional kyphosis in the cervicothoracic area. Eur Spine J 24(Suppl 1):S31–S37. doi: 10.1007/s00586-014-3654-7 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cho SK, Kim YJ, Lenke LG (2015) Proximal junctional kyphosis following spinal deformity surgery in the pediatric patient. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 23(7):408–414. doi: 10.5435/JAAOS-D-14-00143 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kim YJ, Lenke LG, Bridwell KH, et al (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) 32:2731–2738CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Wang J, Zhao Y, Shen B et al (2010) Risk factor analysis of proximal junctional kyphosis after posterior fusion in patients with idiopathic scoliosis. Injury 41:415–420CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Glattes RC, Bridwell KH, Lenke LG, et al (2005) Proximal junctional kyphosis in adult spinal deformity following long instrumented posterior spinal fusion: incidence, outcomes, and risk factor analysis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 30:1643–1649CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bridwell KH, Lenke LG, Cho SK, Pahys JM, Zebala LP, Dorward IG et al (2013) Proximal junctional kyphosis in primary adult deformity surgery: evaluation of 20 degrees as a critical angle. Neurosurgery 72(6):899–906CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Liu FY, Wang T, Ding WY (2015) Incidence and risk factors for proximal junctional kyphosis: a meta-analysis. Eur Spine J. doi: 10.1007/s00586-016-4534-0 Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Sun Z, Qiu G, Shen J, et al (2015) Risk factors of proximal junctional angle increase after selective posterior thoracolumbar/lumbar fusion in patients with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Eur Spine J 24:290–297. doi: 10.1007/s00586-014-3639-6 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kim YJ, Lenke LG, et al. (2012) Proximal junctional kyphosis as a distinct form of adjacent segment pathology after spinal deformity surgery. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 37(22):S144–S164. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e31826d611b CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lenke LG, Betz RR, Harms J, Bridwell KH, Clements DH, Lowe TG, Blanke K (2001) Adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: a new classification to determine extent of spinal arthrodesis. J Bone Jt Surg Am 83-A:1169–1181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sacramento-Dominguez C, Vayas-Diez R, Coll-Mesa L, et al (2009) Reproducibility measuring the angle of proximal junctional kyphosis using the first or the second vertebra above the upper instrumented vertebrae in patients surgically treated for scoliosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 34:2787–2791CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hollenbeck SM, Glattes RS, Asher MA (2008) The prevalence of increased proximal junctional flexion following posterior instrumentation and arthrodesis for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Spine 33(15):1675–1681CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Helgeson MD, Shah SA, Newton PO, Clements, Betz RR, Marks MC, Bastrom T (2010) Evaluation of proximal junctional kyphosis in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis following pedicle screw, hook, or hybrid instrumentation. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 35:177–181. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181c77f8c CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Cho SK, Shin JI, Kim YJ (2014) Proximal junctional kyphosis following adult spinal deformity surgery. Eur Spine J 23(12):2726–2736. doi: 10.1007/s00586-014-3531-4 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kim YJ, Bridwell KH, Lenke LG, Kim J, Cho SK (2005) Proximal junctional kyphosis in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis following segmental posterior spinal instrumentation and fusion: minimum 5-year follow-up. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 30:2045–2050CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kim HJ, Yagi M, Nyugen J et al (2012) Combined anterior-posterior surgery is the most important risk factor for developing proximal junctional kyphosis in idiopathic scoliosis. Clin Orthop Relat Res 470:1633–1639CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Yagi M, King AB, Boachie-Adjei O (2012) Incidence, risk factors, and natural course of proximal junctional kyphosis: surgical outcomes review of adult idiopathic scoliosis. Minimum 5 years of follow-up. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 37:1479–1489CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Anderson AL, McIff TE, Asher MA, Burton DC, Glattes RC (2009) The effect of posterior thoracic spine anatomical structures on motion segment flexion stiffness. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 34:441–446CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • S. Ghailane
    • 1
  • Sebastien Pesenti
    • 1
    • 2
  • E. Peltier
    • 1
  • E. Choufani
    • 1
  • B. Blondel
    • 2
    • 3
  • J. L. Jouve
    • 1
  1. 1.Pediatric Orthopedics, Hopital de la Timobe, CHU TimoneAix Marseille UniversityMarseilleFrance
  2. 2.Aix Marseille University, CNRS, ISM, Institute of Movement ScienceMarseilleFrance
  3. 3.Spine UnitCHU TimoneMarseilleFrance

Personalised recommendations