Abstract
Purpose
To compare the results after hemivertebra resection through a single posterior approach and through a combined anterior and posterior approach.
Methods
This is a retrospective study on patients treated by hemivertebra resection with monosegmental instrumentation for congenital scoliosis at a single institution. The patients were divided into two groups according to the surgical approach. Both groups were compared for curve correction, complication rate and perioperative data. Paired samples T test was used for statistical evaluation.
Results
Twenty-five consecutive patients were included. In 12 cases the hemivertebra resection was performed through a single posterior approach (SPA) and in 13 via a combined anterior and posterior approach (CAPA). Curve correction was similar in both groups (59 vs. 55%, p > 0.05). Duration of surgery (272 vs. 319 min) and postoperative mechanical ventilation were shorter in the SPA group (5 vs. 30 h), but did not reach statistical significance (p > 0.05). Significant blood loss necessitating blood transfusion was observed in six patients operated through an SPA and in 8 patients operated through a CAPA. The duration of the ICU management (1 vs. 3 days) and the hospital stay (12 vs. 19 days) were significantly shorter in the SPA group (p < 0.05). Less surgery related general complications were observed in the SPA group (0 vs. 38%).
Conclusions
Similar correction of the main and the compensatory curves can be achieved with single posterior and combined anterior and posterior hemivertebra resection. Benefits of the SPA are lower complication rate and shorter recovery period.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Winter RB, Moe JH, Eilers VE (1968) Congenital scoliosis: a study of 234 patients treated and untreated: Part I: natural history. J Bone Joint Surg Am 50:1–13
Marks DS, Qaimkhani SA (2009) The natural history of congenital scoliosis and kyphosis. Spine 34(17):1751–1755
Nasca RJ, Stelling FH, Steel HH (1975) Progression of congenital scoliosis due to hemivertebrae and hemivertebrae with bars. J Bone Joint Surg Am 57:456–466
McMaster MJ, Ohtsuka K (1982) The natural history of congenital scoliosis. A study of two hundred and fifty-one patients. J Bone Joint Surg Am 64:1128–1147
Royle ND (1928) Operative removal of an accessory vertebrae. Med J Aust 1:467–468, 387–391
Von Lackum HL, Smith AD (1933) Removal vertebral bodies in the treatment of scoliosis. Surg Gyn Obstet 57:250–256
Wiles P (1951) Resection of dorsal vertebrae in congenital scoliosis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 33:151–154
Leatherman KD, Dickson RA (1979) Two-stage corrective surgery for congenital deformities of the spine. J Bone Joint Surg Br 61:324–328
Bergoin M, Bollini G, Taibi L et al (1986) Excision of hemivertebrae in children with congenital scoliosis. Ital J Orthop Traumatol 12:179–184
Bradford DS, Boachie-Adjei O (1990) One-stage anterior and posterior hemivertebral resection and arthrodesis for congenital scoliosis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 72:536–540
Lazar R, Hall J (1999) Simultaneous anterior, posterior hemivertebra excision. Clin Orthop 363:76–84
Bollini G, Docquier PL, Viehweger E, Launay F, Jouve JL (2006) Thoracolumbar hemivertebrae resection by double approach in a single procedure: long-term follow-up. Spine 31(15):1745–1757
Bollini G, Docquier PL, Viehweger E, Launay F, Jouve JL (2006) Lumbar hemivertebra resection. J Bone Joint Surg Am 88(5):1043–1052
Hall JE, Herndon WA, Levine CR (1981) Surgical treatment of congenital scoliosis with or without Harrington instrumentation. J Bone Joint Surg Am 63:608–619
Hedequist DJ, Hall JE, Emans JB (2004) The safety and efficacy of spinal instrumentation in children with congenital spine deformities. Spine 29:2081–2086 discussion 2087
Grossfeld S, Winter RB, Lonstein JE, Denis F, Leonard A, Johnson L (1997) Complications of anterior spinal surgery in children. J Pediatr Orthop 17(1):89–95
Ruf M, Harms J (2002) Hemivertebra resection by a posterior approach: innovative operative technique and first results. Spine 27(10):1116–1123
Ruf M, Harms J (2003) Posterior hemivertebra resection with transpedicular instrumentation: early correction in children aged 1 to 6 years. Spine 28:2132–2138
Shono Y, Abumi K, Kaneda K (2001) One-stage posterior hemivertebra resection and correction using segmental posterior instrumentation. Spine 26(7):752–757
Nakamura H, Matsuda H, Konishi S, Yamano Y (2002) Single-stage excision of hemivertebrae via the posterior approach alone for congenital spine deformity: follow-up period longer than ten years. Spine 27(1):110–115
Callahan BC, Georgopoulos G, Eilert RE (1997) Hemivertebral excision for congenital scoliosis. J Pediatr Orthop 17:96–99
Winter RB, Moe JH, Lonstein JE (1984) Posterior spinal arthrodesis for congenital scoliosis, an analysis of the cases of two hundred and ninety patients: 2 to 19 years old. J Bone Joint Surg Am 66:1188–1197
Slabaugh PB, Winter RB, Lonstein JE et al (1980) Lumbosacral hemivertebrae: a review of twenty-four patients with excision in eight. Spine 5:234–244
Jalanko T, Rintala R, Puisto V, Helenius I (2011) hemivertebra resection for congenital scoliosis in young children: comparison of clinical, radiographic, and health-related quality of life outcomes between the anteroposterior and posterolateral approaches. Spine 36(1):41–49
Winter RB (1976) Congenital kyphoscoliosis with paralysis following hemivertebra excision. Clin Orthop 119:116–125
Holte DC, Winter RB, Lonstein JE et al (1995) Excision of hemivertebrae and wedge resection in the treatment of congenital scoliosis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 77:159–171
Schwartz DM, Auerbach JP, Dormans JP et al (2007) Detection of impending spinal cord injury during scoliosis surgery. J Bone Joint Surg Am 89:2440–2449
Conflict of interest
None.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Mladenov, K., Kunkel, P. & Stuecker, R. Hemivertebra resection in children, results after single posterior approach and after combined anterior and posterior approach: a comparative study. Eur Spine J 21, 506–513 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-011-2010-4
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-011-2010-4