Defining the learning curve in CT-guided navigated thoracoscopic vertebral body tethering

Abstract

Summary

Estimated blood loss (EBL), anesthesia time, operative time, and length of stay decreased over 67 navigated vertebral body tethering (VBT) surgeries performed in a 5-year period, indicating a steep learning curve.

Design

Retrospective review of prospectively collected data.

Hypothesis

There would be a significant improvement in the performance of VBT procedures over time at a single tertiary center in terms of perioperative and postoperative outcomes.

Purpose

Learning a new procedure for surgeons takes time, and previous studies have described improved efficiency as experience grows. VBT procedures are increasingly being performed in the US, but there is limited data regarding the learning curve specifically regarding the use of CT-guided navigation. We sought to assess the learning curve of VBT with respect to estimated blood loss, anesthesia time, operative time, length of stay, percent correction of the major curve at first follow-up. We further sought to characterize change in rates of 90-day complications.

Methods

Pediatric scoliosis patients who underwent thoracic or lumbar CT-guided navigated VBT with a consistent surgical team at a single tertiary referral center between 2015 and 2020 were included. Student t-test was used to assess change in perioperative parameters over time, and also results between first and latest group of 20 patients were compared.

Results

67 patients met inclusion criteria. Estimated blood loss (EBL), operative time, anesthesia time and length of stay significantly decreased over the 5-year study period. Specifically, on comparison of our first 20 patients with our last 20, the former had greater EBL (282 vs 116 ml, p = 0.0005; 8.5% vs 3.6%, p = 0.0024), operative time (4.8 h vs. 3.3 h, p < 0.001), anesthesia time (7.4 h vs. 5.7 h, p = 0.0001), and length of stay (3.7 days vs. 3.2 days, p = 0.019). We also found significant reduction in EBL, operative time, anesthesia time and LOS in patients who underwent VBT surgery after 2019.

There was no significant change in the percent correction of the major Cobb angle at first erect imaging or 90-day complications over the 5-year study period or between the various cohorts.

Conclusion

This series has demonstrated improvements in surgical efficiency for VBT including reduced EBL, operative time, anesthesia time and hospital stay over a 5-year period. This indicates improved surgical technique and outlines the significant learning curve for surgeons who wish to perform this procedure. Improved surgeon training programs and newer instrumentation may reduce this learning curve.

Take home point

67 cases in a 5-year period, VBT procedures performed at a single center had significantly decreased EBL, anesthesia time, operative time, and length of stay, indicating a steep learning curve.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

References

  1. 1.

    Weinstein SL, Dolan LA, Cheng JC, Danielsson A, Morcuende JA (2008) Adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Lancet 371(9623):1527–1537. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(08)60658-3

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Burton DC, Carlson BB, Place HM, Fuller JE, Blanke K, Cho R, Fu KM, Ganju A, Heary R, Herrera-Soto JA, Larson AN, Lavelle WF, Nelson IW, Vernengo-Lezica A, Verska JM (2016) Results of the scoliosis research society morbidity and mortality database 2009–2012: a report from the morbidity and mortality committee. Spine Deform 4(5):338–343. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jspd.2016.05.003

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Martin CT, Pugely AJ, Gao Y, Weinstein SL (2015) Causes and risk factors for 30-day unplanned readmissions after pediatric spinal deformity surgery. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 40(4):238–246. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000000730

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Pugely AJ, Martin CT, Gao Y, Ilgenfritz R, Weinstein SL (2014) The incidence and risk factors for short-term morbidity and mortality in pediatric deformity spinal surgery: an analysis of the NSQIP pediatric database. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 39(15):1225–1234. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000000365

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Crawford CH 3rd, Lenke LG (2010) Growth modulation by means of anterior tethering resulting in progressive correction of juvenile idiopathic scoliosis: a case report. J Bone Jt Surg Am 92(1):202–209. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.H.01728

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Samdani AF, Ames RJ, Kimball JS, Pahys JM, Grewal H, Pelletier GJ, Betz RR (2014) Anterior vertebral body tethering for idiopathic scoliosis: two-year results. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 39(20):1688–1693. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000000472

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Samdani AF, Ames RJ, Kimball JS, Pahys JM, Grewal H, Pelletier GJ, Betz RR (2015) Anterior vertebral body tethering for immature adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: one-year results on the first 32 patients. Eur Spine J 24(7):1533–1539. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-014-3706-z

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Joshi V, Cassivi SD, Milbrandt TA, Larson AN (2018) Video-assisted thoracoscopic anterior vertebral body tethering for the correction of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis of the spine. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 54(6):1134–1136. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejcts/ezy200

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Jain V, Lykissas M, Trobisch P, Wall EJ, Newton PO, Sturm PF, Cahill PJ, Bylski-Austrow DI (2014) Surgical aspects of spinal growth modulation in scoliosis correction. Instr Course Lect 63:335–344

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Stokes IA (2007) Analysis and simulation of progressive adolescent scoliosis by biomechanical growth modulation. Eur Spine J 16(10):1621–1628. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-007-0442-7

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Aronsson DD, Stokes IA (2011) Nonfusion treatment of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis by growth modulation and remodeling. J Pediatr Orthop 31(1 Suppl):S99-106. https://doi.org/10.1097/BPO.0b013e318203b141

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Newton PO, Shea KG, Granlund KF (2000) Defining the pediatric spinal thoracoscopy learning curve: sixty-five consecutive cases. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 25(8):1028–1035. https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-200004150-00019

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Sharif S, Afsar A (2018) Learning curve and minimally invasive spine surgery. World Neurosurg 119:472–478. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wneu.2018.06.094

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Ergene G (2019) Early-term postoperative thoracic outcomes of videothoracoscopic vertebral body tethering surgery. Turk Gogus Kalp Damar Cerrahisi Derg 27(4):526–531. https://doi.org/10.5606/tgkdc.dergisi.2019.17889

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Baker CE, Milbrandt TA, Potter DD, Larson AN (2020) Anterior Lumbar Vertebral Body Tethering in Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis. JPOSNA. 2(3) (Oct 2020)

  16. 16.

    Miyanji F, Pawelek J, Nasto LA, Rushton P, Simmonds A, Parent S (2020) Safety and efficacy of anterior vertebral body tethering in the treatment of idiopathic scoliosis. Bone Joint J 102-B(12):1703–1708. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.102B12.BJJ-2020-0426.R1

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Hoernschemeyer DG, Boeyer ME, Robertson ME, Loftis CM, Worley JR, Tweedy NM, Gupta SU, Duren DL, Holzhauser CM, Ramachandran VM (2020) Anterior vertebral body tethering for adolescent scoliosis with growth remaining: a retrospective review of 2 to 5-year postoperative results. J Bone Jt Surg Am 102(13):1169–1176. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.19.00980

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Baky FJ, Milbrandt T, Echternacht S, Stans AA, Shaughnessy WJ, Larson AN (2019) Intraoperative computed tomography-guided navigation for pediatric spine patients reduced return to operating room for screw malposition compared with freehand/fluoroscopic techniques. Spine Deform 7(4):577–581. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jspd.2018.11.012

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Baroncini A, Trobisch PD, Migliorini F (2021) Learning curve for vertebral body tethering: analysis on 90 consecutive patients. Spine Deform 9(1):141–147. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43390-020-00191-5

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Lonner BS, Scharf C, Antonacci D, Goldstein Y, Panagopoulos G (2005) The learning curve associated with thoracoscopic spinal instrumentation. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 30(24):2835–2840. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.brs.0000192241.29644.6e

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Buyuk AF, Milbrandt TA, Mathew SE, Potter DD, Larson AN (2021) Does preoperative and intraoperative imaging for anterior vertebral body tethering predict postoperative correction? Spine Deform. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43390-020-00267-2

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Su AW, McIntosh AL, Schueler BA, Milbrandt TA, Winkler JA, Stans AA, Larson AN (2017) How does patient radiation exposure compare with low-dose o-arm versus fluoroscopy for pedicle screw placement in idiopathic scoliosis? J Pediatr Orthop 37(3):171–177. https://doi.org/10.1097/BPO.0000000000000608

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Su AW, Luo TD, McIntosh AL, Schueler BA, Winkler JA, Stans AA, Larson AN (2016) Switching to a pediatric dose O-Arm protocol in spine surgery significantly reduced patient radiation exposure. J Pediatr Orthop 36(6):621–626. https://doi.org/10.1097/BPO.0000000000000504

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

Funding for this study was obtained from Orthopedic Research and Education Foundation, Pediatric Orthopedic Society of North America, and Mayo CCaTS-CBD Pilot Award for Team Science.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

Substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work, or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: SM, TAM, DDP, ANL; Drafting the work or critically revising it for important intellectual content: SM, TAM, DDP, ANL; Final Approval of the version to be published: SM, TAM, DDP, ANL; Responsible for content and accuracy of the entire manuscript: SM, TAM, DDP, ANL; The order and inclusion should be decided by consensus among the authors and acknowledged in writing: SM, TAM, DDP, ANL.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to A. Noelle Larson.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

Outside of the study, Dr. Milbrandt reports consulting activities with Orthopediatrics, Medtronic, Zimmer and stock ownership in Viking Scientific. Dr. Larson reports consulting activities with Orthopediatrics, Medtronic, Zimmer, and Globus. Dr. Potter reports consulting activities with Medtronic.

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

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Mathew, S., Larson, A.N., Potter, D.D. et al. Defining the learning curve in CT-guided navigated thoracoscopic vertebral body tethering. Spine Deform (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s43390-021-00364-w

Download citation

Keywords

  • Vertebral body tethering
  • Scoliosis
  • Learning curve