Abstract
Purpose
The aim of our study is to compare anterior and posterior corrections of thoracic (Lenke I) and lumbar (Lenke V) curves when modern posterior pedicle screw systems with vertebral derotation techniques are used. Curves that could not be corrected with both systems were excluded.
Methods
A thoracic group (N = 56) of Lenke I AIS patients (18 anterior and 38 posterior) and a lumbar group (N = 42) of Lenke V patients (14 anterior and 28 posterior) with similar curves < 65° were identified.
Results
Thoracic group The mean postoperative correction (POC) was 68 ± 13.4% in the anterior and 72 ± 10.5% in the posterior group. The postoperative change in thoracic kyphosis was +4° and +5° respectively. The median length of fusion was eight segments in the posterior and seven segments in the anterior groups. In 89% the LIV was EV or shorter in the anterior, and in 71% of the posterior corrections.
Lumbar group The mean POC was 75 ± 18.3% (anterior) and 72 ± 8.5% (posterior). The postoperative gain in lumbar lordosis was 0.8° (anterior) and 4° (posterior). The median length of fusion was five segments in both groups and there was no difference in relation of the LIV to the EV.
Conclusion
With modern implants and derotation techniques, the posterior approach can achieve similar coronal correction, apical derotation and thoracic kyphosis with similar length of fusion and better lumbar lordosis restoration.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
Choosing a surgical approach, anterior, posterior or combined, in treating AIS has been controversial for a long time. Classically, AIS has been treated by posterior spinal instrumentation and fusion with good postoperative outcomes [1]. However, limited rotational correction, and consequently the need for longer posterior constructs, were the main drawbacks in the early years [1, 2]. To overcome these limitations, anterior surgery has been initially introduced in 1969 by Dwyer et al. [3] and then further refined and modified by Zielke [4]. A main benefit, compared to the posterior systems available at that time, was the better correction with a shorter construct [1]. Less fusion levels and better kyphosis restoration, had been the main arguments for anterior correction. However, most comparative studies on this topic used dorsal systems which are nowadays no longer available, such as CD or Harrington., With these systems, fusion to the stable vertebra, or with later systems to the last substantially touched vertebra (LSTV), was needed [5,6,7]. Such guidelines were overcome with modern posterior systems enabling a better 3D deformity correction [7, 8] with better apical derotation from posterior [9].
Considering the drawbacks of the anterior approach such as pulmonary complications, risk of pseudarthrosis, reduction of lumbar lordosis and a higher incidence of junctional kyphosis [10]; this superiority has to be critically reevaluated.
The aim of our study is to compare anterior correction of single thoracic (Lenke I) and lumbar (Lenke V) curves to those achieved with modern pedicle screw-based posterior systems. Both, curve correction in the coronal and sagittal planes as well as the length of fusion in relation to the end vertebra (EV) were investigated.
Materials and methods
Study design & patient sample
This is a single-center, single-surgeon study. The data of more than 300 AIS patients, that have received a corrective surgery of their thoracic and/or lumbar curves, have been collected prospectively. To get comparable groups only patients which could easily be addressed from anterior and posterior were included. Thus, double curves and more sever curves were excluded. Two groups have been identified: a thoracic group (N = 56) of Lenke I patients with preoperative Cobb angle ranging from 45° to 65°, and a lumbar group (N = 42) of Lenke V patients with a preoperative Cobb angle ranging from 40° to 60°. Within each group, two further subgroups, anterior and posterior, were identified. Of the thoracic cases 18 had an anterior and 38 a posterior approach. In the lumbar group we had 14 anterior and 28 posterior cases. The follow-up period was at least 2 years for all patients.
Surgical details & implants
The length of fusion and types of implant/screws used, were recorded.
For all ventral cases the Halm-Zielke double rod instrumentation was used as described by Halm [11]. The spine was addressed from the convex side. For lumbar curves a thoracophrenicotomy, for thoracic curves a double thoracotomy was performed. All patients received a chest tube for at least three days postoperatively and was then removed when it drained less than 100 ml in 12 h. A meticulous release of the disk space and the anterior longitudinal ligament was performed on each level in order to enable correction and bony fusion. A double rod was used in all cases. The correction was performed by the thicker rod, and the thinner rod was used to create lordosis or kyphosis when needed. After resection of the endplates, bone-on-bone fusion could be achieved. Any possible bone voids were filled with autologous bone. No additional cages were used.
Correction was done by differential rod bending, concave translation and convex cantilever. For thoracic curves, correction was started on the concave side to crerate kyphosis. For lumbar curvesthe, the main correction was done from the convex side to enhance lordosis.
All posterior instrumentations were done with the Expedium system (DePuy) as described before [9, 12]. Polyaxial screws were used for most of the vertebrae, Long-tab screws were used at the apex on the concave side and monoaxial or derotation screws on the convex side. In lumbar curves, a combination of monoaxial and polyaxial screws was used with monoaxial screws on the apex of the convex side to support derotation. Correction was done by differential rod bending, concave translation and convex cantilever. In thoracic curves correction was started on the concave side to create kyphosis. In lumbar curves the main correction was done from the convex side to enhance lordosis. Dorsal release with facet joints resection was done in all cases. None of the cases included in the study received Ponte osteotomies. This is usually done in curves > 70!
Both the anterior double rod technique and posterior pedicle screw instrumentation with derotation apply to the most recent standards.
Intraoperative neuromonitoring with motor evoked potentials (MEP) and EMG was used in all cases. All posterior cases received postoperative epidural anesthesia.
Selection of the upper and lowest instrumented vertebra (LIV)
When determining the extent of fusion, specific criteria have been applied to preoperatively define the lower and upper instrumented vertebra (LIV & UIV) in both groups. A special caution is needed when selecting the LIV, due to higher risk of distal adding-on, with coronal decompensation, and subsequently higher risk of developing degenerative disk disease.
Posterior group
-
LIV was defined to be:
-
the stable vertebra in the side-bending X-ray (does not have to be the stable vertebra in the normal AP film)
-
the first vertebra distally, below which the disk space opens on both sides in the right/left bending films
-
UIV was mostly chosen to be the neutral vertebra cranially.
Anterior group
Here, an end-to-end instrumentation has been performed in most of the cases, but if the requirements mentioned above were applicable, even shorter fusions were done.
Radiographic measures
The radiographic outcome measures were thoracic and lumbar Cobb angle, thoracic kyphosis, apical vertebral translation (AVT), apical vertebral rotation according to Raimondi [13], and coronal imbalance with truncal shift defined as the lateral deviation of the C7 plumbline from the central sacral vertical line (CSVL), in millimeters. All these parameters were identified pre- and postoperatively for all cases by an independent observer. Percentage postoperative Correction (POC), preoperative flexibility (PF) and the Cincinnati Correction Index (CCI) which is the percentage of correction in relation to the flexibility [14] were calculated.
Complications
All surgery related complications were recorded.
Statistical methods
Data were statistically described in terms of mean ± standard deviation (±SD). Numerical data were tested for the normal assumption using Shapiro–Wilk test. Comparison of numerical variables between the study groups was done using Student t test for independent samples. Two-sided P values less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant. IBM SPSS (Statistical Package for the Social Science; IBM Corp, Armonk, NY, USA) release 22 for Microsoft Windows was used for all statistical analyses.
Results
Demographic data
A total of 98 patients with moderate scoliosis, of which 32 received an anterior and 66 received a posterior fusion were included in the study. The perioperative and demographic data are presented in Table 1. Apart from the operation time, that was significantly shorter in the posterior group, as well for thoracic and lumbar curves, demographic data showed no statistically significant differences between the groups.
Length of fusion
The length of fusion as well as the LIV, defined in relation to the EV, are presented in Table 2. For lumbar curves a similar length of five segments was fused in both anterior and posterior subgroups. Figures 1 and 2 show examples of end-to-end instrumentation of thoracolumbar/lumbar curves when doing correction posteriorly (Fig. 1) or form anterior (Fig. 2). In thoracic cases, a fusion of eight segments in average was recorded in the posterior and seven segments in the anterior subgroups. The difference was mainly in the UIV which was usually T4 in posterior but T5 in anterior fusion, as T4 can rarely be reached anteriorly because of the overlying vessels. Figures 3 and 4 demonstrate examples of posterior correction (Fig. 3) and anterior fusion (Fig. 4) of thoracic curves.
The LIV has been the EV in a comparable portion of cases for posterior and anterior fusions.Differences were not statistically significant neither for thoracic nor for lumbar fusions.
For lumbar curves, of the 28 posterior cases the LIV was L3 in 22 cases (79%) and even L2 in 6 (21%) cases. Of the 22 cases in which we stopped at L3, L3 was the EV in 19 and EV-1 in 3 cases.
Of the 14 anterior cases we stopped at L3 in 10 (71%) and at L2 in 4 (29%) cases. Of the ten cases with L3 as LIV, L3 was the EV in nine cases and EV-1 in 1 case.
Coronal correction
Thoracic curves The mean preoperative Cobb angle of the major curve was 53.4° (±6) in the posterior and 52.6° (±6.7) in the anterior group; and was corrected to 16.0° (±5.3) and 17.2° (±8.1), respectively (Table 3).
There was no statistically significant difference in PF between the posterior (38.7 ± 20.2) and the anterior (40.0 ± 16.4) corrections. The percentage of operative correction (POC) was slightly better after posterior (72 ± 10.5%) compared to anterior instrumentation (68 ± 13.4%); however, the difference was not statistically significant. Although, there was no significant difference in the preoperative apical rotation (18.4 ± 8.6 in the posterior group and 22.9 ± 8.5 in the anterior group), the postoperative apical rotation was less after posterior surgery (7.1 ± 6.4) than from anterior (13.1 ± 7.1); this difference was statistically significant.
The preoperative deviation from CSVL was 1.6 mm to the left in the posterior, and 4.1 mm to the right in the anterior groups (difference of 2.4 mm—statistically insignificant). This coronal imbalance has worsened slightly postoperatively in the posterior group with 6.1 mm deviation to the left, compared to a slight improvement to 2.4 mm deviation to the right in the anterior group (difference of 3.7 mm—statistically insignificant).
Two years postoperatively, there was a slight increase in the Cobb angle of the main curve (about 4° in the posterior and 2° in the anterior subgroups); however, this slight increase was not statistically or clinically significant and within range of measurement. On the other hand, the overall coronal balance, expressed in the deviation from CSVL, showed a slight spontaneous improvement in both posterior (1.9 mm) and anterior (0.3 mm) cases.
Lumbar curves The mean preoperative Cobb angle of the major curve was 48.5° (±5.9) in the posterior group and 48.7° (±6.1) in the anterior group; and was corrected to 13.2° (±5.0) and 11.7° (±8.1), respectively (Table 4). There was no statistically significant difference in flexibility between patients operated from posterior (64.3 ± 12.9%) or anterior (57.1 ± 22.0%). The percentage of correction (POC) was slightly better in the anterior group (75.5 ± 18.2%) compared to posterior (71.8 ± 8.5%). Although there was no significant difference in the preoperative apical rotation (23.4 ± 7.6 in the posterior and 23.8 ± 5.4 in the anterior group), the postoperative apical rotation was significantly less after posterior instrumentation (9.0 ± 6.9) than after anterior (14.0 ± 8.0).
A deviation of 12.1 mm to the left from CSVL in the posterior compared to 15.3 mm deviation to the right in the anterior groups have been seen. This has improved in both anterior and posterior cases postoperatively. The pre- & postoperative differences between the anterior and posterior subgroups within the lumbar group were statistically significant.
Two years postoperatively, there was only a slight increase of the Cobb angle of the major curve in both subgroups (3.9° posteriorly and 1.8° anteriorly), however with a stable coronal balance.
Sagittal correction
Thoracic group We could not find a statistically significant differences in pre- or postoperative kyphosis between posterior and anterior patients (Table 3). The postoperative gain in thoracic kyphosis was slightly higher in posterior (5° ± 7.4) than in the anterior (3° ± 12.6) surgeries; however, the difference was not statistically significant.
Lumbar group The mean postoperative change in lumbar lordosis was −4° (±1.8) in posterior and −0.8 (±1.9) in anterior operated patients. (Table 4). The spontaneous postoperative change in thoracic kyphosis was slightly higher in the posterior (3° ± 9.8) than in the anterior (2° ± 6.3) group; however, not statistically significant.
Complications
Within the thoracic group complications included one posterior case with distal adding-on which required revision extending the fusion distally, one wound infection with the need for a revision surgery after posterior surgery. Among the anterior cases, one case of wound healing disturbance was seen, two cases developed a proximal adding-on but required no revision.
In the lumbar group one case of wound healing disturbance and three cases of distal adding-on, requiring extending the fusion distally, were seen in the posterior subgroup; in the anterior subgroup no complications were recorded.
Discussion
We could show that, using modern instrumentation, comparable short fusions can be achieved from an anterior and posterior approach in moderate single curves. The old dogma that posterior fusions always have to be longer than anterior is no longer valid for the majority of cases if modern pedicle screw-based systems are used. If the disk below the EV opens on both sides in the right/left bending films, and the curve is flexible enough a posterior approach is sufficient. This includes the majority of lumbar curves. For more severe curves anterior release might be beneficial.
Short fusions have predominant clinical importance for the lumbar spine as the number of free segments affects mobility and the risk of developing adjacent degenerative disk disease. As each preserved motion segment counts, we always tried to stay as short as possible especially in lumbar curves. We could achieve a similar length of fusion of five segments using end-to-end instrumentation in 68% from posterior, compared to 64% when doing anterior correction. In about 30% of our cases, we could even stay shorter than the EV. This problem of kyphosis in lumbar curves was addressed with a double rod system. In this way the lordosis could be maintained but not increased significantly.
On the other hand, three posterior cases within the lumbar group (10% of the lumbar cases treated posteriorly) developed distal adding-on requiring revision. L3 was the LIV in two cases (EV-1 in both) and in 1 case L2 was chosen as the LIV (EV-1). The three cases were revised extending the fusion 1 segment distally to the EV. If these three cases would have been primarily fused to the EV rather than EV-1; then theoretically the LIV would have been the EV in 22 posterior cases (79%) compared to 9 anterior cases (64%) within the lumbar group; this difference would have been significant. This will reflect on our selection of the LIV when correcting lumbar curves posteriorly.
In thoracic curves we also had a comparable mean length of fusion of eight segments in posterior and seven segments in the anterior surgeries. A selective fusion with end-to-end instrumentation could be done in 58% of the posterior and 66% of the anterior corrections. As the impact of an additional segment in the thoracolumbar junction is not as big as in the lumbosacral region; we, as most surgeons, had to weigh the risk of an adding-on against the benefit of preserving one more free segment.
Our results differed to the literature, as most studies reported longer instrumentations when using posterior fusion [15,16,17,18]. Abel et al. showed in their cohort of 40 patients that when correcting Lenke V curves posterior fusion had significantly more fused levels than anterior fusion [17]. Franic et al. in their meta-analysis [1] showed that on average three fewer fusion segments are needed when performing anterior correction compared to posterior fusion. This correlates with the results of Halm et al. who showed that the anterior approach allows more selective and shorter fusion [19] compared to posterior, where longer constructs were used [1]. But these authors used different techniques for posterior correction than we did. In their meta-analysis, Franic et al. and colleagues showed that nine different posterior instrumentations were used, with multi-segmented hook-screw instrumentation being the most frequent one, followed by Cotrel-Dubousset (CD) [1]; all of which are systems that are no longer used.
An explanation for the shorter anterior fusion was postulated that the removal of the disks allowed for better derotation combined with restoration of the kyphosis. In those days posterior correction was done mainly by distraction and rod rotation. Therefore, Katwicki et al. [20] showed a better correction of the axial rotation with anterior instrumentation. Likewise Franic et al. [1] in their meta-analysis documented a better rotational correction of 49% with an anterior approach compared to 22% achieved by the posterior instrumentation.
Since then, different techniques for posterior direct vertebral derotation (DVD) were described using special derotation screws, uniplanar or monoaxial screws [9, 10, 21,22,23].We started early with posterior derotation in combination with Ponte osteotomies [9, 12]. In our technique we achieved a better rotational correction for both thoracic and lumbar curves from posterior.
With modern instrumentation and facet resections we could achieve a similar correction of thoracic (72% from posterior compared to 68% anterior) and lumbar curves (71% compared to 75%, respectively). With former techniques this amount of correction could not always be reached. Franic et al. reported 66% correction using the anterior compared to 61% with the posterior approach [1]; and Li et al. [24] showed 54% anterior correction compared to 55% posterior correction. We think that better correction possibilities enabled shorter fusions and hope that this evolution will proceed.
Another factor in favor for anterior correction in thoracic curves was the better kyphosis restoration [1, 10] as most of the AIS curves are hypokyphotic [1, 25]. Rhee et al. [26] examined 110 AIS patients and showed a significant increase in thoracic kyphosis with anterior versus posterior correction (+ 4° vs. −2° for anterior and posterior approaches, respectively). However, this kyphogenic effect has a negative impact when correcting lumbar curves where lordosis is wanted. With our posterior approach we could achieve an increase in thoracic kyphosis of 5° which was similar to anterior correction with an increase of 3°. In lumbar curves, we could enhance the lordosis by 4° with posterior instrumentation compared to only 0.8° from anterior. Thus, posterior correction could achieve a desirable kyphogenic effect in thoracic curves by correcting from the concave side and a lordogenic effect in lumbar curves by derotation from the convex side.
Former studies presented heterogenous results regarding sagittal plane correction by posterior approach. This can be contributed to the different posterior derotation techniques used. While Urbanski and colleagues [27], and Tsirikos et al. [28] showed a better kyphosis restoration; Kim et al. [29] and Lowenstein et al. [30] showed decrease in thoracic kyphosis. We ourselves showed in a previous study [9] an increase in thoracic kyphosis when rotating around the convex side, and on the other side a minimal decrease in thoracic kyphosis when performing correction from the concave side with derotation screws. Thus, it cannot be generally stated that posterior instrumentation leads to decrease of kyphosis. This rather depends on the technique used.
We found shorter operation times in the posterior group, but this could be attributed to the surgeon’s experience. We are aware that other surgeons who perform more anterior scoliosis corrections could have different operation times. In the meantime, as we perform anterior corrections with Vertebral Body Tethering (VBT), the approaches are much more minimal invasive and operation times are also shorter than 2 h for single thoracic curves.
Furthermore the anterior approach was reported to have adverse effects on the pulmonary function [31,32,33]. A thoracotomy can cause a decline in pulmonary function 3 months postoperatively, which becomes normal by two years postoperatively, but not better as the preoperative levels [10]. The posterior fusion without rip hump resection does not negatively impact the pulmonary function on the long run; it would rather have a positive impact on the respiratory tests at 2- & 6-year follow up [10, 34]. Other factors which led us favor the posterior approach in the last years were the possibility to apply peridural catheters and the faster recovery in absence of chest tubes.
The availability of different pedicle screw systems, including long-tab, monoaxial, unilateral & derotation screws, enable the surgeon to choose between, or combine, different correction/derotation techniques. This resulted in a better, or at least similar, scoliosis correction in all different planes (coronal, sagittal & rotational correction). From our point of view this provides an advantage of the posterior approach considering the approach-related morbidity and the longer operation times associated with the anterior approach.
Conclusion
Since the last comparative studies, the posterior systems have advanced dramatically. With modern implants and derotation techniques, the posterior approach can achieve similar apical derotation, thoracic kyphosis and better lumbar lordosis restoration, and similar Cobb angle reduction in AIS patients. Similar length of fusion and the possibility to stop at the EV combined with shorter operation times and lower approach-related morbidity let us favor the posterior over the anterior approach for standard curves. This might change in future, as minimal invasive access devices for the anterior approach with a new generation of instruments and implants, may evolve. Hence, the anterior approach should still be considered as an alternative, as it still has the potential benefits of faster bone healing; and better release of stiffer curves.
Thus, new comparative studies to reevaluate the pros and cons of both approaches would then be needed.
Data availibility
The data that suuport the findings of this study are available, and can be provided anonymously upon request from the corresponding author.
References
Franic M, Kujundzic Tiljak M, Pozar M, Romic D, Mimica M, Petrak J et al (2012) Anterior versus posterior approach in 3D correction of adolescent idiopathic thoracic scoliosis: a meta-analysis. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 98(7):795–802
Wood KB, Transfeldt EE, Ogilvie JW, Schendel MJ, Bradford DS (1991) Rotational changes of the vertebral-pelvic axis following Cotrel-Dubousset instrumentation. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 16(8 Suppl):S404–S408
Dwyer AF, Newton NC, Sherwood AA (1969) An anterior approach to scoliosis. A preliminary report. Clin Orthop Relat Res 62:192–202
Zielke K, Berthet A (1978) VDS—ventral derotation spondylodesis—preliminary report on 58 cases. Beitr Orthop Traumatol 25(2):85–103
Margulies JY, Floman Y, Robin GC, Neuwirth MG, Kuflik P, Weidenbaum M et al (1998) An algorithm for selection of instrumentation levels in scoliosis. Eur Spine J 7(2):88–94
King HA, Moe JH, Bradford DS, Winter RB (1983) The selection of fusion levels in thoracic idiopathic scoliosis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 65(9):1302–1313
Suk SI (2011) Pedicle screw instrumentation for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: the insertion technique, the fusion levels and direct vertebral rotation. Clin Orthop Surg 3(2):89–100
Lenke LG, Betz RR, Bridwell KH, Harms J, Clements DH, Lowe TG (1999) Spontaneous lumbar curve coronal correction after selective anterior or posterior thoracic fusion in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 24(16):1663–1671; discussion 72
Hammad A, Wirries A, Eberl J, Geiger F (2022) Derotation screws provide no advantage over polyaxial screws regarding coronal & sagittal correction in thoracic curves of AIS patients. Eur Spine J 31(11):3029–3035
Tambe AD, Panikkar SJ, Millner PA, Tsirikos AI (2018) Current concepts in the surgical management of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Bone Joint J 100-B(4):415–424
Halm H, Liljenqvist U, Niemeyer T, Winkelmann W, Zielke K (1997) Halm-Zielke instrumentation (Munster Anterior Double Rod System) as an improvement over Zielke-VDS. Surgical method and preliminary results. Z Orthop Ihre Grenzgeb 135(5):403–411
Geiger F (2009) More options in scoliosis patients with the Dual Innie Favored Angle Reduction Tab Screw (DI FAR screw). ArgoSpine News J 21(3):102–105
Weiss HR (1995) Measurement of vertebral rotation: perdriolle versus Raimondi. Eur Spine J 4(1):34–38
Vora V, Crawford A, Babekhir N, Boachie-Adjei O, Lenke L, Peskin M et al (2007) A pedicle screw construct gives an enhanced posterior correction of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis when compared with other constructs: myth or reality. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 32(17):1869–1874
Luo M, Wang W, Shen M, Xia L (2016) Anterior versus posterior approach in Lenke 5C adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: a meta-analysis of fusion segments and radiological outcomes. J Orthop Surg Res 11(1):77
Tao F, Wang Z, Li M, Pan F, Shi Z, Zhang Y et al (2012) A comparison of anterior and posterior instrumentation for restoring and retaining sagittal balance in patients with idiopathic adolescent scoliosis. J Spinal Disord Tech 25(6):303–308
Abel MF, Singla A, Feger MA, Sauer LD, Novicoff W (2016) Surgical treatment of Lenke 5 adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: comparison of anterior vs posterior approach. World J Orthop 7(9):553–560
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
Halm H, Richter A, Thomsen B, Koszegvary M, Ahrens M, Quante M (2009) Anterior scoliosis surgery. State of the art and a comparison with posterior techniques. Orthopade 38(2):131–134, 136–140, 42–45
Kotwicki T, Dubousset J, Padovani JP (2006) Correction of flexible thoracic scoliosis below 65°—a radiological comparison of anterior versus posterior segmental instrumentation applied to similar curves. Eur Spine J 15(6):972–981
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
Watanabe K, Nakamura T, Iwanami A, Hosogane N, Tsuji T, Ishii K et al (2012) Vertebral derotation in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis causes hypokyphosis of the thoracic spine. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 13:99
Kuklo TR, Potter BK, Polly DW Jr, Lenke LG (2005) Monaxial versus multiaxial thoracic pedicle screws in the correction of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 30(18):2113–2120
Li M, Ni J, Fang X, Liu H, Zhu X, He S et al (2009) Comparison of selective anterior versus posterior screw instrumentation in Lenke5C adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 34(11):1162–1166
Betz RR, Harms J, Clements DH 3rd, Lenke LG, Lowe TG, Shufflebarger HL et al (1999) Comparison of anterior and posterior instrumentation for correction of adolescent thoracic idiopathic scoliosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 24(3):225–239
Rhee JM, Bridwell KH, Won DS, Lenke LG, Chotigavanichaya C, Hanson DS (2002) Sagittal plane analysis of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: the effect of anterior versus posterior instrumentation. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 27(21):2350–2356
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
Tsirikos AI, Mataliotakis G, Bounakis N (2017) Posterior spinal fusion for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis using a convex pedicle screw technique: a novel concept of deformity correction. Bone Joint J 99-B(8):1080–1087
Kim YJ, Lenke LG, Cho SK, Bridwell KH, Sides B, Blanke K (2004) Comparative analysis of pedicle screw versus hook instrumentation in posterior spinal fusion of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 29(18):2040–2048
Lowenstein JE, Matsumoto H, Vitale MG, Weidenbaum M, Gomez JA, Lee FY et al (2007) Coronal and sagittal plane correction in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: a comparison between all pedicle screw versus hybrid thoracic hook lumbar screw constructs. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 32(4):448–452
Addai D, Zarkos J, Bowey AJ (2020) Current concepts in the diagnosis and management of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Childs Nerv Syst 36(6):1111–1119
Bullmann V, Schulte TL, Schmidt C, Gosheger G, Osada N, Liljenqvist UR (2013) Pulmonary function after anterior double thoracotomy approach versus posterior surgery with costectomies in idiopathic thoracic scoliosis. Eur Spine J 22 Suppl 2(Suppl 2):S164–S171
Demura S, Watanabe K, Suzuki T, Saito T, Yamamoto T, Kotani T et al (2020) Comparison of pulmonary function after selective anterior versus posterior fusion for the correction of thoracolumbar and lumbar adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Global Spine J 10(4):433–437
Lee ACH, Feger MA, Singla A, Abel MF (2016) Effect of surgical approach on pulmonary function in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis patients: a systemic review and meta-analysis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 41(22):E1343–E1355
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank our reviewers for reviewing this manuscript.
Funding
Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL. No funding was utilized for conducting this study.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
All authors contributed to the study conception and design. Material preparation, data collection and analysis were performed by Ahmed Hammad, Johanna Eberl, André Wirries and Florian Geiger. The first draft of the manuscript was written by Ahmed Hammad and Florian Geiger; and all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All surgeries were performed by the corresponding author Florian Geiger. All authors read and approved the final manuscript and agreed to be accountable for the work.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Financial/non-financial interests
The authors have no financial or non-financial interests to declare.
Ethics approval/informed consent
This is a retrospective study. According to the national German ethical guidelines and laws no ethics approval/informed consent are needed when conducting a retrospective study on already available anonymous data.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
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/.
About this article
Cite this article
Hammad, A., Eberl, J., Wirries, A. et al. Is the anterior approach still superior to posterior correction in AIS regarding correction, fusion levels and kyphosis when modern posterior systems are used?. Spine Deform 12, 699–710 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s43390-024-00832-z
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s43390-024-00832-z