Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Comparison of clinical and functional outcomes of vertebral body tethering to posterior spinal fusion in patients with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis and evaluation of quality of life: preliminary results

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

Abstract

Purpose

This preliminary study was aimed to present the results of the comparison of clinical and functional outcomes of vertebral body tethering (VBT) and posterior spinal fusion (PSF) for the first time in the literature.

Methods

21 thoracolumbar (T5-L3) VBT patients (VBT group); and 22 age–gender–fusion level and minimum follow-up duration matched thoracolumbar (T3-L3) PSF patients (PSF group) were enrolled. Average FU duration of group 1 and 2 were 37.1/37.8 months (p = 0.33). Patients clinical data together with SRS-22 scores and SF-36 scores were compared. A retrospective, comparative study was undertaken.

Results

VBT group was detected to have superior lumbar range of motion; superior anterior–lateral lumbar bending flexibility; superior flexor and extensor endurances of trunk, and superior average motor strength of trunk muscles with high statistical significance. VBT group was also detected to have superior scores regarding life quality, including better average total SRS-22 and better average SF-36 MCS/PCS scores with also high statistical significance.

Conclusion

This study for the first time in the literature concluded, that in skeletally immature patients with AIS, VBT as a result of the utilization of growth modulation was able to yield significantly superior lumbar range of motion, lumbar anterior and lateral flexibility, trunk flexor–extensor endurance and trunk motor strength as compared to patients who underwent fusion. By yielding significantly superior SRS-22 and SF-36 scores, VBT was detected to provide better life quality and patient satisfaction than fusion. This study concluded hereby, that by applying VBT, spinal motion could be preserved and complications of fusion could be avoided.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Samdani AF, Ames RJ, Kimball JS, Pahys JM, Grewal H, Pelletier GJ et al (2015) Anterior vertebral body tethering for immature adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: one-year results on the first 32 patients. Eur Spine J Off Publ Eur Spine Soc Eur Spinal Deform Soc Eur Sect Cerv Spine Res Soc 24:1533–1539. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-014-3706-z

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Samdani AF, Ames RJ, Kimball JS, Pahys JM, Grewal H, Pelletier GJ et al (2014) Anterior vertebral body tethering for idiopathic scoliosis: two-year results. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 39:1688–1693. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000000472

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Green DW, Lawhorne TW 3rd, Widmann RF, Kepler CK, Ahern C, Mintz DN et al (2011) Long-term magnetic resonance imaging follow-up demonstrates minimal transitional level lumbar disc degeneration after posterior spine fusion for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 36:1948–1954. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181ff1ea9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Kepler CK, Meredith DS, Green DW, Widmann RF (2012) Long-term outcomes after posterior spine fusion for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Curr Opin Pediatr 24:68–75. https://doi.org/10.1097/MOP.0b013e32834ec982

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Danielsson AJ, Romberg K, Nachemson AL (2006) Spinal range of motion, muscle endurance, and back pain and function at least 20 years after fusion or brace treatment for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: a case–control study. Spine Phila Pa 31:275–283. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.brs.0000197652.52890.71

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Newton PO, Fricka KB, Lee SS, Farnsworth CL, Cox TG, Mahar AT (2002) Asymmetrical flexible tethering of spine growth in an immature bovine model. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 27:689–693

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Braun JT, Ogilvie JW, Akyuz E, Brodke DS, Bachus KN (2004) Fusionless scoliosis correction using a shape memory alloy staple in the anterior thoracic spine of the immature goat. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 29:1980–1989

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Pehlivanoglu T, Oltulu I, Ofluoglu E, Sarioglu E, Altun G, Korkmaz M et al (2020) Thoracoscopic vertebral body tethering for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: a minimum of 2 years’ results of 21 patients. J Pediatr Orthop. https://doi.org/10.1097/BPO.0000000000001590

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Newton PO, Kluck DG, Saito W, Yaszay B, Bartley CE, Bastrom TP (2018) Anterior spinal growth tethering for skeletally immature patients with scoliosis: a retrospective look two to four years postoperatively. J Bone Jt Surg Am 100:1691–1697. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.18.00287

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Ito T, Shirado O, Suzuki H, Takahashi M, Kaneda K, Strax TE (1996) Lumbar trunk muscle endurance testing: an inexpensive alternative to a machine for evaluation. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 77:75–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0003-9993(96)90224-5

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Newton PO, Farnsworth CL, Faro FD, Mahar AT, Odell TR, Mohamad F et al (2008) Spinal growth modulation with an anterolateral flexible tether in an immature bovine model: disc health and motion preservation. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 33:724–733. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e31816950a0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Lonner BS, Ren Y, Yaszay B, Cahill PJ, Shah SA, Betz RR et al (2018) Evolution of surgery for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis over 20 years: have outcomes improved? Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 43:402–410. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000002332

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Engsberg JR, Lenke LG, Uhrich ML, Ross SA, Bridwell KH (2003) Prospective comparison of gait and trunk range of motion in adolescents with idiopathic thoracic scoliosis undergoing anterior or posterior spinal fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 28:1993–2000. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.BRS.0000087209.34602.42

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Engsberg JR, Lenke LG, Reitenbach AK, Hollander KW, Bridwell KH, Blanke K (2002) Prospective evaluation of trunk range of motion in adolescents with idiopathic scoliosis undergoing spinal fusion surgery. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 27:1346–1354. https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-200206150-00018

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Ohashi M, Bastrom TP, Marks MC, Bartley CE, Newton PO (2020) The benefits of sparing lumbar motion segments in spinal fusion for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis are evident at 10 years postoperatively. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 45:755–763. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000003373

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Shin S-S, Woo Y. Characteristics of sitting balance and trunk muscle endurance in patients with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis, 2007.

  17. Danielsson AJ, Wiklund I, Pehrsson K, Nachemson AL (2001) Health-related quality of life in patients with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: a matched follow-up at least 20 years after treatment with brace or surgery. Eur Spine J Off Publ Eur Spine Soc Eur Spinal Deform Soc Eur Sect Cerv Spine Res Soc 10:278–288. https://doi.org/10.1007/s005860100309

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Pellegrino LN, Avanzi O (2014) Prospective evaluation of quality of life in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis before and after surgery. J Spinal Disord Tech 27:409–414. https://doi.org/10.1097/BSD.0b013e3182797a5e

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

Tuna PEHLIVANOGLU, Ismail OLTULU, Yigit ERDAG, Umut Dogu AKTURK, Emre KORKMAZ, Erkan YILDIRIM, Ender SARIOGLU, Ender OFLUOGLU and Mehmet AYDOGAN declared, that they have never received any financial support.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Orthopedic Surgery and Traumatology, Emsey Advanced Spine Surgery Center, Emsey Hospital, Çamlık Mahallesi, Selçuklu Caddesi, Pendik, 34912, İstanbul, Turkey

    Tuna Pehlivanoglu, Ismail Oltulu, Yigit Erdag, Ender Sarioglu & Mehmet Aydogan

  2. Faculty of Health Sciences, Yeni Yüzyıl University, Maltepe Mahallesi, Yılanlı Ayazma Caddesi, No: 26 P.K. Cevizlibağ/Zeytinburnu, 34010, İstanbul, Turkey

    Tuna Pehlivanoglu

  3. Department of Neurosurgery, Emsey Advanced Spine Surgery Center, Emsey Hospital, Çamlık Mahallesi, Selçuklu Caddesi, Istanbul, Turkey

    Umut Dogu Akturk, Emre Korkmaz & Ender Ofluoglu

  4. Department of Thoracic Surgery, Emsey Advanced Spine Surgery Center, Emsey Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey

    Erkan Yildirim

Authors
  1. Tuna Pehlivanoglu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ismail Oltulu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Yigit Erdag
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Umut Dogu Akturk
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Emre Korkmaz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Erkan Yildirim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Ender Sarioglu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Ender Ofluoglu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Mehmet Aydogan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

TP, IO, YE, UDA, EK, EY, ES, EO, MA:Made substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data; or the creation of new software used in the work; drafted the work or revised it critically for important intellectual content; approved the version to be published; and agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tuna Pehlivanoglu.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of ınterest

Tuna PEHLIVANOGLU, Ismail OLTULU, Yigit ERDAG, Umut Dogu AKTURK, Emre KORKMAZ, Erkan YILDIRIM, Ender SARIOGLU, Ender OFLUOGLU and Mehmet AYDOGAN declared, that have no conflict of interest.

Ethics approval

This study received institutional review board approval.

Informed consent

All patients were taken informed consents regarding the participation to the present study and publication of their clinical and radiographic data.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Pehlivanoglu, T., Oltulu, I., Erdag, Y. et al. Comparison of clinical and functional outcomes of vertebral body tethering to posterior spinal fusion in patients with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis and evaluation of quality of life: preliminary results. Spine Deform 9, 1175–1182 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s43390-021-00323-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s43390-021-00323-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation