Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Five or more proximal anchors and including upper end vertebra protects against reoperation in distraction-based growing rods

  • Case Series
  • Published:
Spine Deformity Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Study design

Retrospective multi-center enrollment.

Objective

To examine the impact of patient and surgical factors on proximal complication and revision rates of early onset scoliosis patients using a multicenter database.

Summary of background data

Proximal anchor pullout and junctional kyphosis are common causes necessitating revision surgery during growth friendly treatment of early onset scoliosis (EOS). Many options exist for proximal fixation and may impact the rate of these complications.

Methods

Retrospective review of multicenter database of patients with growth friendly constructs for EOS. Inclusion criteria were patients with index instrumentation < 10 years of age and minimum of 2 year follow-up.

Results

353 patients met the inclusion criteria and had the following constructs: growing rods with spine anchors = 303; growing rods with rib anchors = 15 and VEPTR = 35. Mean age at index instrumentation was 6.0 years. Mean preoperative Cobb angle was 76° and mean kyphosis was 54°. Mean follow-up was 6.0 years. 21.8% of patients (77/353) experienced anchor pullout. Lower anchor pullout rates were associated with a higher numbers of proximal anchors (p = 0.003, r = − 0.157), and 5 or more anchors were associated with lower rates of anchor pullout (p = 0.014). Anchor type (rib hooks vs spine anchors vs rib cradle) did not impact rate of anchor pullout (p = 0.853). Kyphosis data was available for 198 patients. 23.2% (46/198) of these patients required proximal extension of their construct after index surgery. Initial instrumentation below the upper end vertebrae (UEV) of kyphosis was associated with higher rates of subsequent proximal revision; 28.9% (20/69) compared to 20.1% (26/129) for those instrumented at or above the UEV (p = 0.035). Preoperative kyphosis and change in thoracic kyphosis were not associated with anchor pullout (p = 0.436, p = 0.115) or proximal revision rates (p = 0.486, p = 0.401).

Conclusion

Five or more anchors are associated with lower rates of anchor pullout. Proximal anchor placement at or above the UEV resulted in a significant decrease in rates of proximal extension of the construct.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Chart 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Lau D et al (2016) The Clinical Correlation of the Hart-ISSG Proximal Junctional Kyphosis Severity Scale With Health-Related Quality-of-life Outcomes and Need for Revision Surgery. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 41(3):213–223

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Vitale MG et al (2008) Health-related quality of life in children with thoracic insufficiency syndrome. J Pediatr Orthop 28(2):239–243

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. La Rosa G, Oggiano L, Ruzzini L (2015) Magnetically Controlled growing rods for the management of early-onset scoliosis: a preliminary report. J Pediatr Orthop 37(2):79–85

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Skaggs DL et al (2009) Weight gain following vertical expandable prosthetic titanium ribs surgery in children with thoracic insufficiency syndrome. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 34(23):2530–2533

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Akbarnia BA et al (2008) Dual growing rod technique followed for three to eleven years until final fusion: the effect of frequency of lengthening. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 33(9):984–990

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Sankar WN, Acevedo DC, Skaggs DL (2010) Comparison of complications among growing spinal implants. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 35(23):2091–2096

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Bess S et al (2010) Complications of growing-rod treatment for early-onset scoliosis: analysis of one hundred and forty patients. J Bone Joint Surg Am 92(15):2533–2543

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Calman R, Smithers T, Rowan R (2013) Impact of surgical waiting time on paediatric spinal deformity patients. ANZ J Surg 83(12):929–932

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Mahar AT et al (2008) Biomechanical comparison of different anchors (foundations) for the pediatric dual growing rod technique. Spine J 8(6):933–939

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Liljenqvist U et al (2001) Pullout strength of pedicle screws versus pedicle and laminar hooks in the thoracic spine. Acta Orthop Belg 67(2):157–163

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Akbarnia BA et al (2014) Biomechanical evaluation of 4 different foundation constructs commonly used in growing spine surgery: are rib anchors comparable to spine anchors? Spine Deform 2(6):437–443

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Heflin J et al (2018) Parallel proximal fixation in rib-based growing rod system: a novel approach to deal with proximal anchor migration. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 43(14):E855–E858

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Hosseini P et al (2018) Construct levels to anchored levels ratio and rod diameter are associated with implant-related complications in traditional growing rods. Spine Deform 6(3):320–326

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Bekmez S et al (2018) Pull-out of upper thoracic pedicle screws can cause spinal canal encroachment in growing rod treatment. J Pediatr Orthop 38(7):e399–e403

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Skaggs KF et al (2013) Upper thoracic pedicle screw loss of fixation causing spinal cord injury: a review of the literature and multicenter case series. J Pediatr Orthop 33(1):75–79

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Joukhadar N et al (2019) Superior extension of upper instrumented vertebrae in distraction-based surgery: a surrogate for clinically significant proximal junctional kyphosis. Spine Deform 7(2):371–375

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Watanabe K et al (2016) Risk factors for proximal junctional kyphosis associated with dual-rod growing-rod surgery for early-onset scoliosis. Clin Spine Surg 29(8):E428–E433

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Carender CN et al (2016) Low pelvic incidence is associated with proximal junctional kyphosis in patients treated with growing rods. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 41(9):792–797

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. El-Hawary R et al (2017) What is the risk of developing proximal junctional kyphosis during growth friendly treatments for early-onset scoliosis? J Pediatr Orthop 37(2):86–91

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Barrett KK et al (2015) Measurement variability in the evaluation of the proximal junction in distraction-based growing rods patients. J Pediatr Orthop 35(6):624–627

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Pan A et al (2018) Upper instrumented vertebrae distal to T2 leads to a higher incidence of proximal junctional kyphosis during growing-rod treatment for early onset scoliosis. Clin Spine Surg 31(7):E337–E341

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Akbarnia BA et al (2014) Traditional growing rods versus magnetically controlled growing rods for the surgical treatment of early-onset scoliosis: a case-matched 2-year study. Spine Deform 2(6):493–497

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

No external funding was secured for this study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Children’s Orthopaedic Center, Children’s Hospital Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA

    Liam Harris, Lindsay M. Andras & David L. Skaggs

  2. San Diego Center for Spinal Disorders, San Diego, CA, USA

    Gregory M. Mundis

  3. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Johns Hopkins Children’s Hospital, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA

    Paul D. Sponseller

  4. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Boston Children’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA

    John B. Emans

Authors
  1. Liam Harris
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Lindsay M. Andras
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Gregory M. Mundis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Paul D. Sponseller
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. John B. Emans
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. David L. Skaggs
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Consortia

Growing Spine Study Group

Contributions

LH: data collection, data analysis, manuscript preparation/review, and final approval of manuscript, LMA: study idea, study design, data analysis, manuscript preparation/review, and final approval of manuscript, GMM: study design, manuscript review/revision, and final approval of manuscript, PDS: study design, manuscript review/revision, and final approval of manuscript, JBE: study design, manuscript review/revision, and final approval of manuscript, Growing Spine Study Group: data collection, manuscript review/revision, and final approval of manuscript, DLS: study idea, study design, manuscript review/revision, and final approval of manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to David L. Skaggs.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

All authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

This study has been carried out with approval from the Committee on Clinical Investigations at Children’s Hospital Los Angeles.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Harris, L., Andras, L.M., Mundis, G.M. et al. Five or more proximal anchors and including upper end vertebra protects against reoperation in distraction-based growing rods. Spine Deform 8, 781–786 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s43390-020-00064-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s43390-020-00064-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation