Skip to main content
Download PDF

Systematic review and meta-analysis for the impact of rod materials and sizes in the surgical treatment of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis

Spine Deformity (2022)Cite this article

Abstract

Purpose

To assess surgical and safety outcomes associated with different rod materials and diameters in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) surgery.

Methods

A systematic literature review and meta-analysis evaluated the surgical management of AIS patients using pedicle screw fixation systems (i.e., posterior rods and pedicle screws) with rods of different materials and sizes. Postoperative surgical outcomes (e.g., kyphosis and coronal correction) and complications (i.e., hyper/hypo-lumbar lordosis, proximal junctional kyphosis, revisions, reoperations, and infections) were assessed. Random-effects models (REMs) pooled data for outcomes reported in ≥ 2 studies.

Results

Among 75 studies evaluating AIS surgery using pedicle screw fixation systems, 46 described rod materials and/or diameters. Two studies directly comparing titanium (Ti) and cobalt–chromium (CoCr) rods found that CoCr rods provided significantly better postoperative kyphosis angle correction vs. Ti rods during a shorter follow-up (0–3 months, MD = − 2.98°, 95% CI − 5.79 to − 0.17°, p = 0.04), and longer follow-up (≥ 24 months, MD = − 3.99°, 95% CI − 6.98 to − 1.00, p = 0.009). Surgical infection varied from 2% (95% CI 1.0–3.0%) for 5.5 mm rods to 4% (95% CI 2.0–7.0%) for 6 mm rods. Reoperation rates were lower with 5.5 mm rods 1% (95% CI 0.0–3.0%) vs. 6 mm rods [6% (95% CI 2.0–9.0%); p = 0.04]. Differences in coronal angle, lumbar lordosis, proximal junctional kyphosis, revisions, and infections did not differ significantly (p > 0.05) among rods of different materials or diameters.

Conclusion

For AIS, CoCr rods provided better correction of thoracic kyphosis compared to Ti rods. Patients with 5.5 mm rods had fewer reoperations vs. 6.0 and 6.35 mm diameter rods.

Level of evidence

III.

Introduction

Adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) is the most common spinal deformity among the pediatric population, occurring in patients aged 10–18 years. Its idiopathic nature necessitates that defined causes of scoliosis (i.e., vertebral or neuromuscular disorders, and other syndromes) have been ruled out. The worldwide prevalence of AIS ranges from 0.47 to 12% and varies according to genetics, age, and gender [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9]. AIS more commonly affects girls than boys, with a female to male ratio of 3.1–1.5 [1]. Moreover, the risk of AIS in girls increases more than boys with increasing age [10]. A higher prevalence of AIS has been reported in the African-American population (9.7%) compared to the Caucasian population (8.1%) [1].

AIS treatment depends on the severity of the curvature [10,11,12,13]. The objectives of surgery in adolescents with significant and/or progressive curvature include achieving a solid fusion and arresting curve progression, achieving permanent deformity correction, improving functional outcomes, improving physical appearance, and suppressing the development of problems in adulthood (i.e., back pain, degenerative changes, functional impairment, and cardiopulmonary compromise). Additional desirable characteristics include preventing surgical complications (e.g., neurological injury, dural tears, position-related complications, gastrointestinal complications, infections and wound complications, implant-related issues, pseudoarthrosis, curve progression, adding-on, and proximal junctional kyphosis [14]) while preserving as many mobile spine segments as possible.

There are multiple factors which contribute to the successful correction of AIS and to minimizing the complications brought about by the surgical treatment. Spinal fixation rods play an important role in the outcomes of spinal deformity surgery as they impact the success of the restoration of global alignment and balance. Hence, surgeons require rods that deliver optimal alignment and meet the needs of each individual patient. A better understanding of the clinical performance of various types of rods available for AIS would help healthcare providers and payers prioritize resource allocation and develop more effective and targeted interventions for the surgical treatment of AIS. The objectives of this study were to assess current evidence for the surgical and safety outcomes associated with rod materials and dimensions for the operative treatment of AIS.

Materials and methods

Study design and approach

The systematic literature review and meta-analysis was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines [15]. Electronic searching of MEDLINE, Embase, KOSMET: Cosmetic Science, APA PsycInfo, and BIOSIS Previews was carried out on November 10, 2020 using the search terms: (spine* OR vertebra*) AND (fusion AND stabilization) AND (rods) AND (child* OR pediatric OR adolescent*). English-language studies published on or after January 1, 2010 evaluating AIS surgical management (patient age 10–18 years) using pedicle screw fixation systems (i.e., posterior rods and pedicle screws), including, but not limited to, ponte osteotomy, revision surgeries, and primary or secondary surgeries, were eligible. The focus of the systematic literature review and meta-analysis was to summarize published clinical evidence from studies conducted in human patients. Biomechanical ex vivo studies, animal studies, and cadaver studies were not included in the evaluations.

Outcome measures

Surgical outcomes included postoperative kyphosis and coronal correction. Postoperative complications included hyper/hypo-lumbar lordosis, proximal junctional kyphosis, revisions, reoperations, and infections.

Study selection and quality assessment

Two reviewers independently applied inclusion/exclusion criteria to screen de-duplicated titles and abstracts. Potentially relevant citations were checked in a full-text screening. Disagreements were resolved through discussion and reasons for exclusion were recorded (Fig. 1). Included studies were critically appraised and ranked as low/good/high-quality evidence using the Evidence level and Quality Guide from Johns Hopkins Nursing Evidence-Based Practice [16, 17].

Fig. 1
figure 1

PRISMA flow diagram showing study selection

Full size image

Evidence synthesis and statistical analysis

Qualitative and quantitative synthesis (using meta-analysis) were performed. Qualitative synthesis included summarizing individual studies and describing their results with respect to the relevant outcomes. Meta-analysis was performed for outcomes that were reported in ≥ 2 studies. For continuous outcome measures, inverse variance random effects models (REMs) estimated pooled mean differences (MDs). Pooled standardized mean differences (SMDs) were used for pain scores since the studies used different pain scales. Means and standard deviations (SDs) were extracted from individual studies or derived from medians with interquartile ranges or means with p values. For dichotomous outcomes, Mantel–Haenszel REMs estimated pooled risk ratios (RRs). For the pooled summary statistics for each outcome in the surgical and non-surgical intervention groups, inverse variance REMs were used. All effect sizes were reported with 95% confidence intervals (CI). The χ2 test was used to test for statistical heterogeneity (α = 0.05) and heterogeneity was quantitatively evaluated using I2 statistics. Statistical significance was set at p ≤ 0.05. RevMan version 5.4 was used for the evidence synthesis and statistical analysis.

Results

Study identification and selection

Among 75 studies meeting the inclusion criteria (Fig. 1), 46 described the rod material and diameter. Titanium alloy (Ti) rods were used in most studies (n = 32), followed by cobalt–chromium (CoCr; n = 16), and stainless steel (SS; n = 8). Rod diameter varied from 4.5 [18] to 6.5 mm [18]; however, the most common rod diameters were 5.5 mm [19, 20], 6.0 mm [21, 22], and 6.35 mm [23, 24]. Table 1 provides a description of the 75 included studies.

Table 1 Characteristics of studies (n = 75) that fulfilled the inclusion criteria for the systematic review and meta-analysis
Full size table

Meta-analyses

Impact of rod material

Surgical outcomes

Kyphosis angle correction: Two studies directly compared the use of Ti and CoCr rods and their effect on postoperative kyphosis angle correction over 0–3 months [21, 53] and ≥ 24 months [21, 53] (Fig. 2). The meta-analysis results revealed that CoCr rods provided significantly better postoperative kyphosis angle correction when compared to Ti rods, not only during a relatively shorter follow-up period (0–3 months, MD = − 2.98°, 95% CI −5.79 to − 0.17°, p = 0.04), but also during a relatively longer follow-up period (≥ 24 months, MD = − 3.99°, 95% CI − 6.98° to − 1.00°, p = 0.009).

Fig. 2
figure 2

Direct comparison of kyphosis angle correction by rod material

Full size image

Coronal angle correction: Two studies compared the use of Ti and CoCr rods and their effect on postoperative coronal angle over ≥ 24 months (Supplemental Fig. S1) [21, 53]. The overall pooled MD between the two groups was 0.50°(95% CI − 2.15° to 3.15°) and was not statistically significant (p = 0.71). The indirect comparative analysis evaluating coronal angle correction included seven studies evaluating Ti rods [19, 28, 64, 68, 70, 72, 77] [pooled MD 73.69% (95% CI 68.05–79.32%)], three studies evaluating stainless steel rods [77,78,79] [pooled MD 71.91% (95% CI 63.63–80.19%)], and three studies evaluating CoCr rods [33, 47, 49] [pooled MD 64.88% (95% CI 59.57–70.19%)]. There were not statistically significant differences in percent change in coronal Cobb angle among the varying rod materials (Chi2 = 5.35; p = 0.07; Supplemental Fig. S2).

Postoperative complications

Proximal junctional kyphosis: The two direct comparative studies also presented the data on the risk of proximal junctional kyphosis stratified by rod material (Ti rods vs. CoCr rods; Supplemental Fig. S3) [21, 53]. The pooled risk ratio of proximal junctional kyphosis between the two groups showed no significant difference (RR = 1.28; 95% CI 0.30–5.54; p = 0.74). Two studies using Ti rods reported at least one case of PJK in AIS patients undergoing posterior spine deformity surgery (Supplemental Fig. S4) [21, 53]. The overall pooled proportion for PJK was 4% (95% CI 0.0–9.0%) in patients who utilized Ti rods. Three studies which used CoCr rods reported an overall pooled proportion of 3% (95% CI 0.0–6.0%) [21, 38, 53]. In the pooled indirect comparison, the test for subgroup difference showed no significant differences between rod materials (Chi2 = 0.19, p = 0.67).


Revision surgery: Three studies using Ti rods reported revisions [53, 74, 82]. The overall pooled proportion for revision was 6% (95% CI 0.0–12.0%). Two studies using cobalt–chromium rods reported revision surgery with an overall pooled proportion of 4% (95% CI 0.0–8.0%) [53, 73]. One study reporting revision surgery used stainless steel rods [73]. In the pooled indirect comparison, no significant differences between rod materials were observed (Chi2 = 0.65, p = 0.72; Supplemental Fig. S5).

Reoperation: Four studies using CoCr rods reported reoperation in AIS patients who underwent spine deformity surgery (Supplemental Fig. S6) [38, 49, 59, 72]. The overall pooled reoperation rate was 2% (95% CI 0.0–3.0%) for CoCr rods. Only one study using stainless steel and another study using Ti rods reported reoperation rates [82]. Thus, the test for subgroup difference could not be performed due to the small number of studies.


Infection. Four studies using titanium rods reported postoperative infections in AIS surgery with pedicle screw fixation systems (Supplemental Fig. S7) [21, 70, 77, 79]. The overall pooled proportion of postoperative infection was 2% (95% CI: 0.0–3.0%) with titanium rods. Six studies using cobalt chromium rods reported postoperative infection with a pooled proportion of 4% (95% CI 2.0–6.0%) [20, 21, 38, 48, 49, 73], while two studies using stainless steel rods reported a pooled infection rate of 8% (95% CI 0.0–18.0%) [73, 77]. In the pooled indirect comparison, the test for subgroup difference showed no significant differences among rod materials (Chi2 = 4.17, p = 0.12).

Impact of rod diameter

Surgical outcomes

Kyphosis angle correction: No studies directly compared the impact of rod diameter on postoperative kyphosis angle. Three studies utilized 6 mm posterior rods for AIS surgery and reported corresponding change in the kyphosis angle [21, 22, 82]. The pooled MD in change in kyphosis angle with 6 mm rods was 13.69° (95% CI: 8.54°–18.84°). Similarly, three eligible studies utilizing 5.5 mm rods reported corresponding change in kyphosis angle were also analyzed [26, 52, 67]. Our analysis revealed a pooled MD of 10.05° (95% CI 8.53°–11.57°) in kyphosis angle. Further, when subgroups were analyzed, the test for subgroup difference showed no significant differences in kyphosis angle change between rods of 5.5 and 6 mm diameters, respectively (Chi2 = 1.77; p = 0.18) (Supplemental Fig. S8).

Coronal Angle Correction: Two studies reported on 5.5 mm and 6.35 mm rods and directly compared their effect on postoperative coronal angle at 6- to 12-month follow-up period (Supplemental Fig. S9) [60, 64]. Our analysis showed no statistically significant difference between postoperative coronal angles among the two groups (MD = 1.63, 95% CI − 0.35° to 3.61°, p = 0.11). Further, no significant heterogeneity was observed among the studies (I2 = 0%, p = 0.96). Three studies directly compared the use of 5.5 mm and 6.35 mm rods and their effect on percent change in coronal angle at follow-up period 6–12 months [60, 64, 75]. The pooled MD showed no significant difference between change in coronal angle of the two groups (MD = 2.81%; 95% CI − 5.94 to 11.57%; p = 0.53; Supplemental Fig. S10).

Three studies that utilized 6.35 mm rods reported percent change in the coronal Cobb angle of AIS patients who underwent spine deformity surgery with pedicle screw fixation systems (Supplemental Fig. S11) [60, 64, 75]. The pooled MD was 69.80% (95% CI 56.43–83.17%). Thirteen studies that used 5.5-mm diameter rods reported relatively higher percent change in the coronal cobb with a pooled MD of 73.01% (95% CI 69.61–76.42%) [19, 32, 35, 46, 47, 60, 64, 70, 75, 77, 78, 86]. On the other hand, three studies which used 6-mm rods reported similar percent change in the coronal cobb angle with a pooled MD of 67.65% (95% CI: 60.88–74.42%) [22, 33, 49]. The test for subgroup difference showed no significant difference in the results among varying rod diameters (Chi2 = 2.02, p = 0.36).

Postoperative complications

Revision surgery: Two studies which used 6-mm diameter rods reported having at least one case of revision surgery in AIS patients who underwent spine deformity surgery with pedicle screw fixation systems (Supplemental Fig. S12) [73, 82]. The overall pooled proportion for revision surgery was 6% (95% CI 2.0–9.0%) in patients who utilized 6-mm diameter rods. One study with at least one case of revision surgery used 6.35-mm diameter rods [74]. Test for subgroup difference was not done due to the small number of studies.

Reoperation: Three studies utilizing 5.5 mm rods reported having at least one case of reoperation in pediatric patients who underwent spine deformity surgery (Fig. 3) [20, 38, 59]. The overall pooled proportion for reoperation surgery was 1% (95% CI 0.0–3.0%) in patients who utilized 5.5 mm diameter rods. Two studies which used 6-mm diameter rods reported having at least one case of reoperation with an overall pooled proportion of 6% (95% CI 2.0–9.0%) [73, 82]. Test for subgroup difference showed a significant difference in proportion of reoperation between the two rod diameters, with the 6 mm diameter rod having a higher propensity for reoperation (Chi2 = 4.39, p = 0.040; Fig. 3).

Fig. 3
figure 3

Indirect comparison of reoperation by rod diameter

Full size image

Infection: Three studies which used 6-mm diameter rods reported having at least one case of postoperative infection in AIS patients who underwent spine deformity surgery with pedicle screw fixation systems (Supplemental Fig. S13) [21, 49, 73]. The overall pooled proportion for infection was 4% (95% CI 2.0–7.0%) in patients who utilized 6-mm diameter rods. Six studies which used 5.5-mm diameter rods reported having at least one case of infection with an overall pooled proportion of 2% (95% CI 1.0–3.0%) [20, 38, 48, 70, 77, 79]. Test for subgroup difference showed no significant differences between rod diameters (Chi2 = 2.69, p = 0.10).

Discussion

The choice of rod used for the correction of scoliosis is an important consideration in the treatment of AIS. There is substantial force exerted in AIS correction and contoured rods must be able to withstand deformation. Composition and design of the spinal rod must strike a complex balance: the rod must be flexible enough for the surgeon to bend in the desired curve, have a high enough bending yield strength that the rod maintains the bent-in-curve throughout the procedure, and have a high enough fatigue strength that it does not fracture during the therapeutic lifetime of the implant (6–24 months for a solid fusion). The rod’s ability to resist deformation or fracture brought about by contouring will depend on the material used and the diameter and shape of the rod. There have been significant changes in the types of rods and the materials used for rods over the years. Initially, Harrington rods consisted of stainless steel (SS). Present day rod constructs are more likely to consist of either Ti or CoCr.

This systematic review and meta-analysis identified 75 studies evaluating the surgical management of AIS using pedicle screw fixation systems; among which 46 studies described rod material and diameter. Study findings showed that CoCr rods provided better correction of thoracic kyphotic angle compared to Ti rods, not only during a relatively shorter follow-up period (0–3 months), but also during a relatively longer follow-up period (≥ 24 months) (p < 0.05). Differences in coronal angle, lumbar lordosis, proximal junctional kyphosis, revisions, and infections did not statistically significantly differ among rods of different materials or diameters. Overall, surgical treatment in patients with AIS using pedicle screw fixation systems had low complication and reoperation rates. Infections varied from 2% for patients receiving 5.5 mm rods to 4% for 6 mm rods (p > 0.05). Reoperation rates varied from 1% for 5.5 mm to 6% for 6-mm diameter rods and were significantly lower with 5.5 mm rods (p = 0.04).

There is a need for improved rod yield strength that will help maintain kyphosis and reduce intra and postoperative loss of correction [92]. Within the evolution of pediatric spinal deformity corrections, surgical technique has evolved to allow for higher degrees of derotation. As surgeons attempt these more aggressive techniques, they have begun observing an inability of the rod to maintain the kyphosis they have bent into the rod [47, 50, 92]. This “flattening” of the curve is most often observed during the high load correction maneuvers in stiff severe curves [50, 93]. There is a need for a rod material with a high yield strength to maintain the kyphosis correction that does not require a large diameter.

Biomechanical properties of spinal rods are typically differentiated by yield strength and stiffness. Generally, Ti is characterized by high yield strength but a lower stiffness, and CoCr is characterized by a very high stiffness and low yield strength [94]. However, the potential impact of rod material properties observed in the laboratory setting are not easily extrapolated to the clinical reality [94]. The clinical performance of spinal rods is susceptible to a complicated interplay of patient, surgeon, and environmental factors [95, 96]. It is possible the answer lies in other combinations of stiffness and bending yield strength. Thus, the focus of this systematic literature review and meta-analysis was to summarize published clinical evidence from studies conducted in actual human patients. Biomechanical ex vivo studies, animal studies, and cadaver studies were not included in the evaluations. Additional high-quality clinical studies comparing biomechanical differences among rod constructs are needed [94].

As expected, when pooling observational (real-world) data [97,98,99], the main limitation of the current study is the heterogeneity of the patient populations evaluated, the surgical techniques and technologies employed, and the definitions of outcomes used. The current study was conducted in line with recommendations available in the literature for the use of real-world evidence in meta-analyses [100]. Since Q was significant and I2 was > 50%, it was appropriate to use the random-effects model (REM) to calculate pooled summary estimates. The range of I2 values observed in the current study (0–98%) is not inconsistent with the range of those observed in other meta-analyses of observational data.

Conclusion

CoCr rods provided better correction of AIS thoracic kyphosis compared to Ti. Surgical AIS treatment using pedicle screw fixation systems had low complication and reoperation rates. Patients with 5.5 mm rods required fewer reoperations compared to patients with 6.0/6.35 mm rods. There is a need for rod materials that provide improved rod strength and bending yield strength in a smaller profile that will help maintain kyphosis and reduce intra- and postoperative loss of kyphosis correction.

References

  1. Konieczny MR, Senyurt H, Krauspe R (2013) Epidemiology of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. J Child Orthop 7(1):3–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11832-012-0457-4

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Daruwalla JS, Balasubramaniam P, Chay SO, Rajan U, Lee HP (1985) Idiopathic scoliosis. Prevalence and ethnic distribution in Singapore schoolchildren. J Bone Jt Surg Br 67(2):182–184. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620x.67b2.3980521

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Soucacos PN, Soucacos PK, Zacharis KC, Beris AE, Xenakis TA (1997) School-screening for scoliosis. A prospective epidemiological study in northwestern and central Greece. J Bone Jt Surg Am 79(10):1498–1503. https://doi.org/10.2106/00004623-199710000-00006

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Ratahi ED, Crawford HA, Thompson JM, Barnes MJ (2002) Ethnic variance in the epidemiology of scoliosis in New Zealand. J Pediatr Orthop 22(6):784–787

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Wong HK, Hui JH, Rajan U, Chia HP (2005) Idiopathic scoliosis in Singapore schoolchildren: a prevalence study 15 years into the screening program. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 30(10):1188–1196. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.brs.0000162280.95076.bb

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Kamtsiuris P, Atzpodien K, Ellert U, Schlack R, Schlaud M (2007) Prävalenz von somatischen Erkrankungen bei Kindern und Jugendlichen in Deutschland. Bundesgesundheitsblatt Gesundheitsforschung Gesundheitsschutz 50(5):686–700. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00103-007-0230-x

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Cilli K, Tezeren G, Taş T, Bulut O, Oztürk H, Oztemur Z et al (2009) School screening for scoliosis in Sivas, Turkey. Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc 43(5):426–430. https://doi.org/10.3944/aott.2009.426

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Nery LS, Halpern R, Nery PC, Nehme KP, Stein AT (2010) Prevalence of scoliosis among school students in a town in southern Brazil. Sao Paulo Med J 128(2):69–73. https://doi.org/10.1590/s1516-31802010000200005

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Suh SW, Modi HN, Yang JH, Hong JY (2011) Idiopathic scoliosis in Korean schoolchildren: a prospective screening study of over 1 million children. Eur Spine J 20(7):1087–1094. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-011-1695-8

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Dunn J, Henrikson N, Morrison C et al (2018) Screening for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: a systematic evidence review for the US Preventive Services Task Force [Internet]. Evidence synthesis. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), Rockville

    Book  Google Scholar 

  11. Jada A, Mackel CE, Hwang SW, Samdani AF, Stephen JH, Bennett JT et al (2017) Evaluation and management of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: a review. Neurosurg Focus 43(4):E2. https://doi.org/10.3171/2017.7.Focus17297

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Bettany-Saltikov J, Turnbull D, Ng SY, Webb R (2017) Management of spinal deformities and evidence of treatment effectiveness. Open Orthop J 11:1521–1547. https://doi.org/10.2174/1874325001711011521

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Ovadia D (2013) Classification of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS). J Child Orthop 7(1):25–28. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11832-012-0459-2

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Al-Mohrej OA, Aldakhil SS, Al-Rabiah MA, Al-Rabiah AM (2020) Surgical treatment of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: complications. Ann Med Surg 52:19–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amsu.2020.02.004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA): transparent reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses (2021). http://www.prisma-statement.org/. Accessed 18 Apr 2021

  16. Newhouse R, Dearholt S, Poe S, Pugh LC, White KM (2005) Evidence-based practice: a practical approach to implementation. J Nurs Adm 35(1):35–40. https://doi.org/10.1097/00005110-200501000-00013

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Dearholt S, Dang D (2012) Johns Hopkins nursing evidence-based practice: model and guidelines, 2nd edn. Nursisng IFJH, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  18. Qiu Y, Zhu F, Wang B, Yu Y, Zhu Z, Qian B et al (2011) Comparison of surgical outcomes of lenke type 1 idiopathic scoliosis: vertebral coplanar alignment versus derotation technique. J Spinal Disord Tech 24(8):492–499. https://doi.org/10.1097/BSD.0b013e3182060337

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Etemadifar MR, Andalib A, Rahimian A, Nodushan S (2018) Cobalt chromium-titanium rods versus titanium-titanium rods for treatment of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis; which type of rod has better postoperative outcomes? Rev Assoc Med Bras (1992) 64(12):1085–1090. https://doi.org/10.1590/1806-9282.64.12.1085

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Faldini C, Perna F, Geraci G, Pardo F, Mazzotti A, Pilla F et al (2018) Triplanar correction of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis by asymmetrically shaped and simultaneously applied rods associated with direct vertebral rotation: clinical and radiological analysis of 36 patients. Eur Spine J 27(Suppl 2):165–174. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-018-5595-z

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Sabah Y, Clément JL, Solla F, Rosello O, Rampal V (2018) Cobalt-chrome and titanium alloy rods provide similar coronal and sagittal correction in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 104(7):1073–1077. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.otsr.2018.07.018

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Sudo H, Abe Y, Kokabu T, Kuroki K, Iwata A, Iwasaki N (2018) Impact of multilevel facetectomy and rod curvature on anatomical spinal reconstruction in thoracic adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 43(19):E1135–E1142. https://doi.org/10.1097/brs.0000000000002628

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Miyazaki M, Ishihara T, Abe T, Kanezaki S, Notani N, Kataoka M et al (2019) Effect of thoracic kyphosis formation and rotational correction by direct vertebral rotation after the simultaneous double rod rotation technique for idiopathic scoliosis. Clin Neurol Neurosurg 178:56–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clineuro.2019.01.014

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Abul-Kasim K, Karlsson MK, Ohlin A (2011) Increased rod stiffness improves the degree of deformity correction by segmental pedicle screw fixation in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Scoliosis 6:13. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-7161-6-13

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Machino M, Kawakami N, Ohara T, Saito T, Tauchi R, Imagama S (2021) Three-dimensional analysis of preoperative and postoperative rib cage parameters by simultaneous biplanar radiographic scanning technique in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: minimum 2-year follow-up. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 46(2):E105–E113. https://doi.org/10.1097/brs.0000000000003743

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Kluck D, Newton PO, Sullivan TB, Yaszay B, Jeffords M, Bastrom TP et al (2020) A 3D parameter can guide concave rod contour for the correction of hypokyphosis in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 45(19):E1264–E1271. https://doi.org/10.1097/brs.0000000000003566

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Shen K, Clement RC, Yaszay B, Bastrom T, Upasani VV, Newton PO (2020) Three-dimensional analysis of the sagittal profile in surgically treated Lenke 5 curves in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Spine Deform 8(6):1287–1294. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43390-020-00168-4

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Miyazaki M, Ishihara T, Abe T, Kanezaki S, Notani N, Kataoka M et al (2020) Analysis of reciprocal changes in upper cervical profiles after posterior spinal fusion with the simultaneous double rod rotation technique for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 106(7):1275–1279. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.otsr.2020.03.017

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Feeley I, Hughes A, Cassidy N, Green C (2020) Use of a novel corrective device for correction of deformities in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Ir J Med Sci 189(1):203–210. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11845-019-02031-6

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Chang DG, Suk SI, Song KS, Kim YH, Oh IS, Kim SI et al (2019) How to avoid distal adding-on phenomenon for rigid curves in major thoracolumbar and lumbar adolescent idiopathic scoliosis? identifying the incidence of distal adding-on by selection of lowest instrumented vertebra. World Neurosurg 132:e472–e478. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wneu.2019.08.110

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Violas P, Bryand C, Gomes C, Sauleau P, Lucas G (2019) Correction of thoracic adolescent idiopathic scoliosis via a direct convex rod manoeuvre. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 105(6):1171–1174. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.otsr.2019.05.007

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Newton PO, Wu KW, Bastrom TP, Bartley CE, Upasani VV, Yaszay B (2019) What factors are associated with kyphosis restoration in lordotic adolescent idiopathic scoliosis patients? Spine Deform 7(4):596–601. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jspd.2018.11.006

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Lastikka M, Oksanen H, Helenius L, Pajulo O, Helenius I (2019) Comparison of circular and sagittal reinforced rod options on sagittal balance restoration in adolescents undergoing pedicle screw instrumentation for idiopathic scoliosis. World Neurosurg 127:e1020–e1025. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wneu.2019.04.028

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Mac-Thiong JM, Remondino R, Joncas J, Parent S, Labelle H (2019) Long-term follow-up after surgical treatment of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis using high-density pedicle screw constructs: Is 5-year routine visit required? Eur Spine J 28(6):1296–1300. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-019-05887-5

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Uehara M, Takahashi J, Ikegami S, Oba H, Kuraishi S, Futatsugi T et al (2019) Determination of optimal screw number based on correction angle for main thoracic curve in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. J Orthop Sci 24(3):415–419. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jos.2018.11.004

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Zhang H, Sucato DJ (2019) A novel posterior rod-link-reducer system provides safer, easier, and better correction of severe scoliosis. Spine Deform 7(3):445–453. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jspd.2018.09.001

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Clément JL, Pelletier Y, Solla F, Rampal V (2019) Surgical increase in thoracic kyphosis increases unfused lumbar lordosis in selective fusion for thoracic adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Eur Spine J 28(3):581–589. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-018-5740-8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Ilharreborde B, Simon AL, Ferrero E, Mazda K (2019) How to optimize axial correction without altering thoracic sagittal alignment in hybrid constructs with sublaminar bands: description of the “frame” technique. Spine Deform 7(2):245–253. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jspd.2018.08.013

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Ketenci IE, Yanik HS, Erdem S (2018) The effect of upper instrumented vertebra level on cervical sagittal alignment in Lenke 1 adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 104(5):623–629. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.otsr.2018.06.003

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Kaliya-Perumal AK, Yeh YC, Niu CC, Chen LH, Chen WJ, Lai PL (2018) Is convex derotation equally effective as concave derotation for achieving adequate correction of selective lenke’s type- 1 scoliosis? Indian J Orthop 52(4):363–368. https://doi.org/10.4103/ortho.IJOrtho_447_16

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. Berger RJ, Sultan AA, Tanenbaum JE, Cantrell WA, Gurd DP, Kuivila TE et al (2018) Cervical sagittal alignment and the impact of posterior spinal instrumented fusion in patients with Lenke type 1 adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. J Spine Surg 4(2):342–348. https://doi.org/10.21037/jss.2018.05.17

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  42. Seki S, Newton PO, Yahara Y, Makino H, Nakano M, Hirano N et al (2018) Differential rod contouring is essential for improving vertebral rotation in patients with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: thoracic curves assessed with intraoperative CT. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 43(10):E585–E591. https://doi.org/10.1097/brs.0000000000002428

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Cheung JPY, Samartzis D, Yeung K, To M, Luk KDK, Cheung KM (2018) A randomized double-blinded clinical trial to evaluate the safety and efficacy of a novel superelastic nickel-titanium spinal rod in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: 5-year follow-up. Eur Spine J 27(2):327–339. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-017-5245-x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Allia J, Clément JL, Rampal V, Leloutre B, Rosello O, Solla F (2018) Influence of derotation connectors on 3d surgical correction of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Clin Spine Surg 31(3):E209–E215. https://doi.org/10.1097/bsd.0000000000000621

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Luo M, Jiang H, Wang W, Li N, Shen M, Li P et al (2017) Influence of screw density on thoracic kyphosis restoration in hypokyphotic adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 18(1):526. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-017-1877-6

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  46. Zifang H, Hengwei F, Yaolong D, Wenyuan S, Qifei W, Lei C et al (2017) Convex-rod derotation maneuver on lenke type I adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Neurosurgery 81(5):844–851. https://doi.org/10.1093/neuros/nyx102

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Ohrt-Nissen S, Dragsted C, Dahl B, Ferguson JAI, Gehrchen M (2017) Improved restoration of thoracic kyphosis using a rod construct with differentiated rigidity in the surgical treatment of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Neurosurg Focus 43(4):E6. https://doi.org/10.3171/2017.7.Focus17351

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Faldini C, Perna F, Borghi R, Chehrassan M, Stefanini N, Ruffilli A et al (2017) Direct vertebral rotation and differently shaped dual rod translation technique in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. J Biol Regul Homeost Agents 31(4 suppl 1):91–96

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Lamerain M, Bachy M, Dubory A, Kabbaj R, Scemama C, Vialle R (2017) All-pedicle screw fixation with 6-mm-diameter cobalt-chromium rods provides optimized sagittal correction of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Clin Spine Surg 30(7):E857–E863. https://doi.org/10.1097/bsd.0000000000000413

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Le Navéaux F, Labelle H, Parent S, Newton PO, Aubin CE (2017) Are there 3D changes in spine and rod shape in the 2 years after adolescent idiopathic scoliosis instrumentation? Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 42(15):1158–1164. https://doi.org/10.1097/brs.0000000000002056

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Chang DG, Yang JH, Suk SI, Suh SW, Kim YH, Cho W et al (2017) Importance of distal fusion level in major thoracolumbar and lumbar adolescent idiopathic scoliosis treated by rod derotation and direct vertebral rotation following pedicle screw instrumentation. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 42(15):E890-e898. https://doi.org/10.1097/brs.0000000000001998

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Urbanski W, Wolanczyk MJ, Jurasz W, Kulej M, Morasiewicz P, Dragan SL et al (2017) The impact of direct vertebral rotation (DVR) on radiographic outcome in surgical correction of idiopathic scoliosis. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 137(7):879–885. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-017-2700-4

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  53. Angelliaume A, Ferrero E, Mazda K, Le Hanneur M, Accabled F, de Gauzy JS et al (2017) Titanium vs cobalt chromium: what is the best rod material to enhance adolescent idiopathic scoliosis correction with sublaminar bands? Eur Spine J 26(6):1732–1738. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-016-4838-0

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Lonner BS, Ren Y, Newton PO, Shah SA, Samdani AF, Shufflebarger HL et al (2017) Risk factors of proximal junctional kyphosis in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis-the pelvis and other considerations. Spine Deform 5(3):181–188. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jspd.2016.10.003

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Kim SS, Kim JH, Suk SI (2017) Effect of direct vertebral rotation on the uninstrumented lumbar curve in thoracic adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Asian Spine J 11(1):127–137. https://doi.org/10.4184/asj.2017.11.1.127

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  56. Panya-amornwat T, Methatien A, Pattarapongsanti A (2017) Comparison of surgical results of direct vertebral rotation with those of simple rod derotation for correction of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. J Med Assoc Thai 100(Suppl 1):S116–S123

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Sudo H, Abe Y, Kokabu T, Ito M, Abumi K, Ito YM et al (2016) Correlation analysis between change in thoracic kyphosis and multilevel facetectomy and screw density in main thoracic adolescent idiopathic scoliosis surgery. Spine J 16(9):1049–1054. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2016.04.014

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Kokabu T, Sudo H, Abe Y, Ito M, Ito YM, Iwasaki N (2016) Effects of multilevel facetectomy and screw density on postoperative changes in spinal rod contour in thoracic adolescent idiopathic scoliosis surgery. PLoS ONE 11(8):e0161906. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0161906

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  59. Gehrchen M, Ohrt-Nissen SR, Hallager DW, Dahl B (2016) A uniquely shaped rod improves curve correction in surgical treatment of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 41(14):1139–1145. https://doi.org/10.1097/brs.0000000000001504

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Huang Z, Wang Q, Yang J, Yang J, Li F (2016) Vertebral derotation by vertebral column manipulator improves postoperative radiographs outcomes of lenke 5C patients for follow-up of minimum 2 years. Clin Spine Surg 29(3):E157–E161. https://doi.org/10.1097/bsd.0000000000000123

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Seki S, Kawaguchi Y, Nakano M, Makino H, Mine H, Kimura T (2016) Rod rotation and differential rod contouring followed by direct vertebral rotation for treatment of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: effect on thoracic and thoracolumbar or lumbar curves assessed with intraoperative computed tomography. Spine J 16(3):365–371. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2015.11.032

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Sudo H, Abe Y, Abumi K, Iwasaki N, Ito M (2016) Surgical treatment of double thoracic adolescent idiopathic scoliosis with a rigid proximal thoracic curve. Eur Spine J 25(2):569–577. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-015-4139-z

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Pankowski R, Roclawski M, Ceynowa M, Mikulicz M, Mazurek T, Kloc W (2016) Direct vertebral rotation versus single concave rod rotation: low-dose intraoperative computed tomography evaluation of spine derotation in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis surgery. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 41(10):864–871. https://doi.org/10.1097/brs.0000000000001363

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Liu H, Li Z, Li S, Zhang K, Yang H, Wang J et al (2015) Main thoracic curve adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: association of higher rod stiffness and concave-side pedicle screw density with improvement in sagittal thoracic kyphosis restoration. J Neurosurg Spine 22(3):259–266. https://doi.org/10.3171/2014.10.Spine1496

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Terai H, Toyoda H, Suzuki A, Dozono S, Yasuda H, Tamai K et al (2015) A new corrective technique for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: convex manipulation using 6.35 mm diameter pure titanium rod followed by concave fixation using 6.35 mm diameter titanium alloy. Scoliosis 10(Suppl 2):S14. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-7161-10-s2-s14

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  66. Tang X, Zhao J, Zhang Y (2015) Radiographic, clinical, and patients’ assessment of segmental direct vertebral body derotation versus simple rod derotation in main thoracic adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: a prospective, comparative cohort study. Eur Spine J 24(2):298–305. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-014-3650-y

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Takahashi J, Ikegami S, Kuraishi S, Shimizu M, Futatsugi T, Kato H (2014) Skip pedicle screw fixation combined with Ponte osteotomy for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Eur Spine J 23(12):2689–2695. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-014-3505-6

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Huang TH, Ma HL, Wang ST, Chou PH, Ying SH, Liu CL et al (2014) Does the size of the rod affect the surgical results in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis? 5.5-mm versus 6.35-mm rod. Spine J 14(8):1545–1550. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2013.09.026

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Clement JL, Chau E, Geoffray A, Suisse G (2014) Restoration of thoracic kyphosis by simultaneous translation on two rods for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Eur Spine J 23(Suppl 4):S438–S445. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-014-3340-9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. de Sales GJ, Jouve JL, Ilharreborde B, Blondel B, Accadbled F, Mazda K (2014) Use of the Universal Clamp in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Eur Spine J 23(Suppl 4):S446–S451. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-014-3341-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Cao Y, Xiong W, Li F (2014) Pedicle screw versus hybrid construct instrumentation in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: meta-analysis of thoracic kyphosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 39(13):E800–E810. https://doi.org/10.1097/brs.0000000000000342

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Sudo H, Ito M, Abe Y, Abumi K, Takahata M, Nagahama K et al (2014) Surgical treatment of Lenke 1 thoracic adolescent idiopathic scoliosis with maintenance of kyphosis using the simultaneous double-rod rotation technique. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 39(14):1163–1169. https://doi.org/10.1097/brs.0000000000000364

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Lamerain M, Bachy M, Delpont M, Kabbaj R, Mary P, Vialle R (2014) CoCr rods provide better frontal correction of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis treated by all-pedicle screw fixation. Eur Spine J 23(6):1190–1196. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-014-3168-3

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. Voleti PB, Shen FH, Arlet V (2014) Failure of monoaxial pedicle screws at the distal end of scoliosis constructs: a case series. Spine Deform 2(2):110–121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jspd.2013.11.004

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  75. Prince DE, Matsumoto H, Chan CM, Gomez JA, Hyman JE, Roye DP Jr et al (2014) The effect of rod diameter on correction of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis at two years follow-up. J Pediatr Orthop 34(1):22–28. https://doi.org/10.1097/BPO.0b013e318288b3c1

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  76. Di Silvestre M, Lolli F, Bakaloudis G, Maredi E, Vommaro F, Pastorelli F (2013) Apical vertebral derotation in the posterior treatment of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: myth or reality? Eur Spine J 22(2):313–323. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-012-2372-2

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  77. Okada E, Watanabe K, Hosogane N, Shiono Y, Takahashi Y, Nishiwaki Y et al (2013) Comparison of stainless steel and titanium alloy instruments in posterior correction and fusion surgery for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis-prospective cohort study with minimum 2-year follow-up. J Med Biol Eng 33:325–329

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. Demura S, Yaszay B, Carreau JH, Upasani VV, Bastrom TP, Bartley CE et al (2013) Maintenance of thoracic kyphosis in the 3D correction of thoracic adolescent idiopathic scoliosis using direct vertebral derotation. Spine Deform 1(1):46–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jspd.2012.06.001

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  79. Tsirikos AI, Subramanian AS (2012) Posterior spinal arthrodesis for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis using pedicle screw instrumentation: does a bilateral or unilateral screw technique affect surgical outcome? J Bone Jt Surg Br 94(12):1670–1677. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620x.94b12.29403

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  80. Anekstein Y, Mirovsky Y, Arnabitsky V, Gelfer Y, Zaltz I, Smorgick Y (2012) Reversing the concept: correction of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis using the convex rod de-rotation maneuver. Eur Spine J 21(10):1942–1949. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-012-2355-3

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  81. Larson AN, Fletcher ND, Daniel C, Richards BS (2012) Lumbar curve is stable after selective thoracic fusion for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: a 20-year follow-up. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 37(10):833–839. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e318236a59f

    Article  Google Scholar 

  82. Clément JL, Chau E, Vallade MJ, Geoffray A (2011) Simultaneous translation on two rods is an effective method for correction of hypokyphosis in AIS: radiographic results of 24 hypokyphotic thoracic scoliosis with 2 years minimum follow-up. Eur Spine J 20(7):1149–1156. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-011-1779-5

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  83. Khakinahad M, Ameri E, Ghandhari H, Tari H (2012) Preservation of thoracic kyphosis is critical to maintain lumbar lordosis in the surgical treatment of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Acta Med Iran 50(7):477–481

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  84. Mladenov KV, Vaeterlein C, Stuecker R (2011) Selective posterior thoracic fusion by means of direct vertebral derotation in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: effects on the sagittal alignment. Eur Spine J 20(7):1114–1117. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-011-1740-7

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  85. Canavese F, Turcot K, De Rosa V, de Coulon G, Kaelin A (2011) Cervical spine sagittal alignment variations following posterior spinal fusion and instrumentation for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Eur Spine J 20(7):1141–1148. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-011-1837-z

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  86. Dalal A, Upasani VV, Bastrom TP, Yaszay B, Shah SA, Shufflebarger HL et al (2011) Apical vertebral rotation in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: comparison of uniplanar and polyaxial pedicle screws. J Spinal Disord Tech 24(4):251–257. https://doi.org/10.1097/BSD.0b013e3181edebc4

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  87. Lamartina C, Petruzzi M, Macchia M, Stradiotti P, Zerbi A (2011) Role of rod diameter in comparison between only screws versus hooks and screws in posterior instrumentation of thoracic curve in idiopathic scoliosis. Eur Spine J 20(Suppl 1):S85–S89. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-011-1757-y

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  88. Lavelle WF, Beltran AA, Carl AL, Uhl RL, Hesham K, Albanese SA (2016) Fifteen to twenty-five year functional outcomes of twenty-two patients treated with posterior Cotrel-Dubousset type instrumentation: a limited but detailed review of outcomes. Scoliosis Spinal Disord 11:18. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13013-016-0079-6

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  89. Miyanji F, Nasto LA, Bastrom T, Samdani AF, Yaszay B, Clements D et al (2018) A detailed comparative analysis of anterior versus posterior approach to lenke 5C curves. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 43(5):E285–E291. https://doi.org/10.1097/brs.0000000000002313

    Article  Google Scholar 

  90. Li J, Zhao Z, Tseng C, Zhu Z, Qiu Y, Liu Z (2018) Selective fusion in lenke 5 adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. World Neurosurg 118:e784–e791. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wneu.2018.07.052

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  91. Geck MJ, Rinella A, Hawthorne D, Macagno A, Koester L, Sides B et al (2013) Anterior dual rod versus posterior pedicle fixation surgery for the surgical treatment in lenke 5C adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: a multicenter, matched case analysis of 42 patients. Spine Deform 1(3):217–222. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jspd.2013.01.002

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  92. Cidambi KR, Glaser DA, Bastrom TP, Nunn TN, Ono T, Newton PO (2012) Postoperative changes in spinal rod contour in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: an in vivo deformation study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 37(18):1566–1572. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e318252ccbe

    Article  Google Scholar 

  93. Slivka MA, Fan YK, Eck JC (2013) The effect of contouring on fatigue strength of spinal rods: is it okay to re-bend and which materials are best? Spine Deform 1(6):395–400. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jspd.2013.08.004

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  94. Ohrt-Nissen S, Dahl B, Gehrchen M (2018) Choice of rods in surgical treatment of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: what are the clinical implications of biomechanical properties? A review of the literature. Neurospine 15(2):123–130. https://doi.org/10.14245/ns.1836050.025

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  95. Ayers R, Hayne M, Burger E (2017) Spine rod straightening as a possible cause for revision. J Mater Sci Mater Med 28(8):123. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10856-017-5935-2

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  96. Pienkowski D, Stephens GC, Doers TM, Hamilton DM (1998) Multicycle mechanical performance of titanium and stainless steel transpedicular spine implants. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 23(7):782–788. https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-199804010-00008

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  97. Higgins J, Thompson S, Deeks J, Altman D (2002) Statistical heterogeneity in systematic reviews of clinical trials: a critical appraisal of guidelines and practice. J Health Serv Res Policy 7(1):51–61. https://doi.org/10.1258/1355819021927674

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  98. Smeeing DPJ, van der Ven DJC, Hietbrink F, Timmers TK, van Heijl M, Kruyt MC et al (2017) Surgical versus nonsurgical treatment for midshaft clavicle fractures in patients aged 16 years and older: a systematic review, meta-analysis, and comparison of randomized controlled trials and observational studies. Am J Sports Med 45(8):1937–1945. https://doi.org/10.1177/0363546516673615

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  99. Abraham NS, Byrne CJ, Young JM, Solomon MJ (2010) Meta-analysis of well-designed nonrandomized comparative studies of surgical procedures is as good as randomized controlled trials. J Clin Epidemiol 63(3):238–245. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.04.005

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  100. Briere JB, Bowrin K, Taieb V, Millier A, Toumi M, Coleman C (2018) Meta-analyses using real-world data to generate clinical and epidemiological evidence: a systematic literature review of existing recommendations. Curr Med Res Opin 34(12):2125–2130. https://doi.org/10.1080/03007995.2018.1524751

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

The study was funded by Johnson & Johnson.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. DePuy Synthes Spine, Johnson & Johnson Medical Devices, 325 Paramount Drive, Raynham, MA, 02767, USA

    Dawn Bowden, Annalisa Michielli, Michelle Merrill & Steven Will

Authors
  1. Dawn Bowden
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Annalisa Michielli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Michelle Merrill
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Steven Will
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

DB: study conception and design, data collection and analysis, and manuscript preparation, revision, and final approval. AM: study conception and design, data collection and analysis, and manuscript revision and final approval. MM: study conception and design, data collection and analysis, and manuscript revision and final approval. SW: study conception and design, data analysis, and manuscript revision and final approval.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dawn Bowden.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

DB, AM, MM, and SW are employees of Johnson & Johnson.

Ethical approval

Not required as it is a systematic review and meta-analysis of previously published data.

Informed consent

Not required as it is a systematic review and meta-analysis of previously published data.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

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

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 6793 KB)

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bowden, D., Michielli, A., Merrill, M. et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis for the impact of rod materials and sizes in the surgical treatment of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Spine Deform (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s43390-022-00537-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s43390-022-00537-1

Keywords

  • Adolescent spine deformity
  • Surgery
  • Outcomes
  • Complications
  • Rods
  • Diameter
  • Material