Skip to main content
Log in

Change in Cobb angle of each segment of the major curve after posterior vertebral column resection (PVCR): a preliminary discussion of correction mechanisms of PVCR

  • Original Article
  • Published:
European Spine Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Introduction

Posterior vertebral column resection (PVCR) is an effective technique for treating severe rigid spinal deformities, and no other osteotomy is capable for such an excellent corrective effects. The purpose of this study was to discuss the correction mechanisms of PVCR.

Materials and methods

Forty-six patients with severe rigid spinal deformities undergoing PVCR were retrospectively analyzed. According to a routine posteroanterior supine entire spine radiograph performed before and after surgery, the major curve at coronal plane was divided into three segments factitiously: upper segment (from the superior endplate of the upper vertebra of the major curve to the inferior endplate of the upper vertebra adjacent to the resected vertebra), middle segment (from the inferior endplate of the upper vertebra adjacent to the resected vertebra to the superior endplate of the lower vertebra of the resected vertebra), and lower segment (from the superior endplate of the lower vertebra of the resected vertebra to the inferior endplate of the lower end vertebra of the major curve). Cobb method was used to measure the curvature of the major curve and each segment. We analyzed the changes of the Cobb angle in the major curve and each segment. We also analyzed the correlation between the placement of pedicle screws and deformity correction.

Results

The Cobb angle of the major curve decreased from 110.1 ± 18.1° to 51.0 ± 17.3° (p < 0.05) after surgery (decreased by 59.1 ± 16.4°), the mean correction rate was 54.1 ± 12.2% (p < 0.05). The Cobb angle of the middle segment decreased by 28.1 ± 14.7° (p < 0.05), the contribution rate was 49.1 ± 27.3%. The upper and lower segments decreased by 15.7 ± 13.1° and 15.3 ± 12.4°, respectively (p < 0.05). There were no significant differences in the contribution rate between upper and lower segments (25.2 ± 16.6% vs. 26.3 ± 22.6%) (p > 0.05). 22 patients were instrumented with at least one pedicle screw in the adjacent upper and lower vertebras of the resected vertebra and gained a better corrective effect in comparison with the others (p < 0.05). The data also indicated that deformity correction was closely related to the numbers of the pedicle screws (r = 0.82, p < 0.05).

Conclusion

In conclusion, the middle segment offered the highest contribution rate to the deformity correction of the major curve, but at the same time the spinal cord was angulated in this segment. So, it is dangerous to gain too much deformity correction in the middle segment. Because spine would shorten and the tension in spinal cord would decrease after vertebral column resection, a better correction effect could be gained in upper and lower segments at a low risk of spinal cord injury. But it was actually too hard for such rigid spinal deformity. It could gain a better corrective effect and stability by placing more pedicle screws at major curve, especially at the upper and lower vertebras adjacent to the resected vertebra, but sometimes it was difficult to place enough pedicle screws in severe rigid spinal deformities.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. MacLennan A (1922) Scoliosis. BMJ 2:865–866

    Google Scholar 

  2. Suk SI, Kim JH, Kim WJ, Lee SM, Chung ER, Nah KH (2002) Posterior vertebral column resection for severe spinal deformities. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 27:2374–2382

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Lenke LG, O’Leary PT, Bridwell KH, Sides BA, Koester LA, Blanke KM (2009) Posterior vertebral column resection for severe pediatric deformity: minimum two-year follow-up of thirty-five consecutive patients. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 34:2213–2221

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Xie J, Wang Y, Zhang Y (2010) Posterior vertebral column resection for correction of severe rigid spinal deformity. In: The SRS 45th Annual Meeting and course. Kyoto, Japan

  5. Bradford DS, Tribus CB (1997) Vertebral column resection for the treatment of rigid coronal decompensation. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 22:1590–1599

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Suk SI, Chung ER, Kim JH, Kim SS, Lee JS, Choi WK (2005) Posterior vertebral column resection for severe rigid scoliosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 30:1682–1687

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Kumano K, Tsuyama N (1982) Pulmonary function before and after surgical correction of scoliosis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 64:242–248

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Liljenqvist U, Hackenberg L, Link T, Halm H (2001) Pullout strength of pedicle screws versus pedicle and laminar hooks in the thoracic spine. Acta Orthop Belg 67:157–163

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Kim YJ, Lenke LG, Kim J, Bridwell KH, Cho SK, Cheh G, Sides B (2006) Comparative analysis of pedicle screw versus hybrid instrumentation in posterior spinal fusion of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 31:291–298

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Rose PS, Lenke LG, Bridwell KH, Mulconrey DS, Cronen GA, Buchowski JM, Schwend RM, Sides BA (2009) Pedicle screw instrumentation for adult idiopathic scoliosis: an improvement over hook/hybrid fixation. Spine (Phila Pa) 34:852–857 858

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Yasser ElMiligui M, Wael Hammad M (2009) All pedicle screw instrumentation for scoliosis correction in Marfan Syndrome. Is it worth it?. In: The SRS 44th Annual Meeting and Course. San Antonio, USA

  12. Koptan WM, Elmiligui YH, Elsebaie HB (2009) All pedicle screw instrumentation for Scheuermann’s kyphosis correction: is it worth it? Spine J 9:296–302

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Quan GM, Gibson MJ (2010) Correction of main thoracic adolescent idiopathic scoliosis using pedicle screw instrumentation: does higher implant density improve correction? Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 35:562–567

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Rampersaud YR, Simon DA, Foley KT (2001) Accuracy requirements for image-guided spinal pedicle screw placement. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 26:352–359

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Ebraheim NA, Jabaly G, Xu R, Yeasting RA (1997) Anatomic relations of the thoracic pedicle to the adjacent neural structures. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 22:1553–1556 1557

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Liljenqvist UR, Link TM, Halm HF (2000) Morphometric analysis of thoracic and lumbar vertebrae in idiopathic scoliosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 25:1247–1253

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Xie J, Wang Y, Zhao Z, Zhang Y (2011) The safe placement of upper and middle thoracic pedicle screws in pediatric deformity. J Spinal Disord Tech 24:55–59

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

None of the authors has any potential conflict of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jingming Xie.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Xie, J., Li, T., Wang, Y. et al. Change in Cobb angle of each segment of the major curve after posterior vertebral column resection (PVCR): a preliminary discussion of correction mechanisms of PVCR. Eur Spine J 21, 705–710 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-011-1985-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-011-1985-1

Keywords

Navigation