Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Meta-analysis on the efficacy and safety of anterior vertebral body tethering in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis

  • Review Article
  • Published:
European Spine Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

In this meta-analysis, we analyzed the efficacy and safety of anterior vertebral body tethering in patients with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis.

Methods

We performed a literature search and analyzed the following data: baseline characteristics, efficacy measures (corrections of the main thoracic curve, proximal thoracic curve, and thoracolumbar curve, thoracic kyphosis, lumbosacral lordosis, rib hump, lumbar prominence and SRS-22 scores, and complications. Analyses were performed with Cochrane's Review Manager version 5.4.

Results

Twelve studies met the inclusion criteria. Significant corrections of the main thoracic (MD 22.51, 95% CI 12.93 to 32.09) proximal thoracic (MD 10.14°, 95% CI 7.25° to 13.02°), and thoracolumbar curve (MD 12.16, 95% CI 9.14 to 15.18) were found. No statistically significant corrections were observed on the sagittal plane assessed by thoracic kyphosis (MD − 0.60°, 95% CI − 2.45 to 1.26; participants = 622; studies = 4; I2 = 36%) and lumbosacral lordosis (MD 0.19°, 95% CI − 2.16° to 2.54°). Significant corrections were identified for rib hump (MD 5.26°, 95% CI 4.19° to 6.32°) and lumbar prominence (MD 1.20°, 95% CI 0.27° to 2.13°) at final follow-up. Significant improvements of total SRS-22 score (MD − 0.96, 95% CI − 1.10 to − 0.83) were achieved at final follow-up. The most common complication was overcorrection (8.0%) and tether breakage (5.9%), with a reoperation rate of 10.1%.

Conclusions

Anterior vertebral body tethering is effective to reduce the curve in the coronal plane and clinical deformity. Maximum correction is achieved at one year. The method should, however, be optimized to reduce the rate of complications.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Lonner BS, Ren Y, Upasani VV et al (2018) Disc degeneration in unfused caudal motion segments ten years following surgery for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Spine Deform 6:684–690

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Bartley CE, Yaszay B, Bastrom TP (2017) Perioperative and delayed major complications following surgical treatment of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 99:1206–1212

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Wilk B, Karol LA, Johnston CE et al (1976) The effect of scoliosis fusion on spinal motion: a comparison of fused and nonfused patients with idiopathic scoliosis. Spine 31:309–314

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Hueter C (1862) Anatomische studien an den extremitaetengelenken neugeborener und erwachsener. Virchows Arch Pathol Anat Physiol 25:572–599

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Volkmann R (1862) Verletzungen und krankenheiten der bewegungsorgane. In: Billroth, vPa, (ed.) Handbuch der allgemeinen und speciellen chirurgie Bd II Teil I. Ferdinand Enke; Stuttgart

  6. Stokes IA, Spence H, Aronsson DD et al (1997) Mechanical modulation of vertebral body growth Implications for scoliosis progression. Spine 21:1162–1167

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Mehlman CT, Araghi A, Roy DR (1997) Hyphenated history: the Hueter- Volkmann law. Am J Orthop (Belle Mead NJ) 26:798–800

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Jain V, Lykissas M, Trobisch P et al (2014) Surgical aspects of spinal growth modulation in scoliosis correction. Instr Course Lect 63:335

    Google Scholar 

  9. Parent S, Shen J (2020) Anterior vertebral body growth- modulation tethering in idiopathic scoliosis: surgical technique. Am Acad Orthop Surg 28:693–699

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Hoernschemeyer DG, Boeyer ME, Robertson ME et al (2020) Anterior vertebral body tethering for adolescent scoliosis with growth remaining: a retrospective review of 2 to 5-year postoperative results. J Bone Joint Surg Am 102(13):1169–1176

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J et al (2009) The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med 6(7):e1000100

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Abdullah A, Parent S, Miyanji F et al (2021) Risk of early complication following anterior vertebral body tethering for idiopathic scoliosis. Spine Deform 9(5):1419–1431

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Bernard J, Bishop T, Herzog J et al (2022) Dual modality of vertebral body tethering : anterior scoliosis correction versus growth modulation with mean follow-up of five years. Bone Jt Open 3(2):123–129

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Boudissa M, Eid A, Bourgeois E et al (2017) Early outcomes of spinal growth tethering for idiopathic scoliosis with a novel device: a prospective study with 2 years of follow-up. Childs Nerv Syst 33(5):813–818

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Hegde SK, Venkatesan M, Akbari KK et al (2021) Efficacy of anterior vertebral body tethering in skeletally mature children with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: a preliminary report. Int J Spine Surg 15(5):995–1003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Miyanji F, Pawelek J, Nasto LA et al (2020) Safety and efficacy of anterior vertebral body tethering in the treatment of idiopathic scoliosis. Bone Joint J 102-B(12):1703–1708

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Newton PO, Kluck DG, Saito W et al (2018) Anterior spinal growth tethering for skeletally immature patients with scoliosis: a retrospective look two to four years postoperatively. J Bone Joint Surg Am 100(19):1691–1697

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Pehlivanoglu T, Oltulu I, Erdag Y et al (2021) Comparison of clinical and functional outcomes of vertebral body tethering to posterior spinal fusion in patients with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis and evaluation of quality of life: preliminary results. Spine Deform 9(4):1175–1182

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Rushton PRP, Nasto L, Parent S (2021) Anterior vertebral body tethering for treatment of idiopathic scoliosis in the skeletally immature: results of 112 cases. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 46(21):1461–1467

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Samdani AF, Ames RJ, Kimball JS et al (2015) Anterior vertebral body tethering for immature adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: one-year results on the first 32 patients. Eur Spine J 24(7):1533–1539

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Shankar D, Eaker L, von Treuheim TDP et al (2022) Anterior vertebral body tethering for idiopathic scoliosis: how well does the tether hold up? Spine Deform 10(4):799–809

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Wong HK, Ruiz JNM, Newton PO et al (2019) Non-fusion surgical correction of thoracic idiopathic scoliosis using a novel, braided vertebral body tethering device: minimum follow-up of 4 years. JB JS Open Access 4(4):e0026

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Mente PL, Aronsson DD, Stokes IA et al (1999) Mechanical modulation of growth for the correction of vertebral wedge deformities. J Orthop Res 17(4):518–524

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Newton PO, Bartley CE, Bastrom TP et al (2020) Anterior spinal growth modulation in skeletally immature patients with idiopathic scoliosis: a comparison with posterior spinal fusion at 2 to 5 years postoperatively. J Bone Joint Surg Am 102(9):769–777

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Polly DW, Larson AN, Samdani AF et al (2021) Cost-utility analysis of anterior vertebral body tethering versus spinal fusion in idiopathic scoliosis from a us integrated healthcare delivery system perspective. Clinicoecon Outcomes Res 13:175–190

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Shin M, Arguelles GR, Cahill PJ et al (2021) Complications, reoperations, and mid-term outcomes following anterior vertebral body tethering versus posterior spinal fusion: a meta-analysis. JB JS Open Access 6(2):e21.00002

    Google Scholar 

  27. Alanay A, Yucekul A, Abul K et al (2020) Thoracoscopic vertebral body tethering for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: follow-up curve behavior according to sanders skeletal maturity staging. Spine 45(22):E1483–E1492

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Baker CE, Kiebzak GM, Neal KM (2021) Anterior vertebral body tethering shows mixed results at 2-year follow-up. Spine Deform 9(2):481–489

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Lonner BS, Auerbach JD, Estreicher MB et al (2009) Pulmonary function changes after various anterior approaches in the treatment of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. J Spinal Disord Tec 22(8):551–558

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Lee CS, Park SJ, Chung SS et al (2013) A comparative study between thoracoscopic surgery and posterior surgery using all-pedicle-screw constructs in the treatment of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. J Spinal Disord Tech 26(6):325–333

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. El-Hawary R, Sucato DJ (2005) Thoracoscopic approach for pediatric spinal deformity. Curr Opin Orthop 16(6):457–463

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

No funding was received.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Spine Unit, Department of Orthopedic Surgery and Traumatology, La Fe University and Polytechnic Hospital of Valencia, Avinguda de Fernando Abril Martorell, 106, 46026, Valencia, Spain

    Gonzalo Mariscal, Jorge Morales, Silvia Pérez, Pedro Antonio Rubio-Belmar, Miquel Bovea-Marco, Jose Luis Bas, Paloma Bas & Teresa Bas

Authors
  1. Gonzalo Mariscal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jorge Morales
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Silvia Pérez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Pedro Antonio Rubio-Belmar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Miquel Bovea-Marco
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Jose Luis Bas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Paloma Bas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Teresa Bas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gonzalo Mariscal.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

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

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Mariscal, G., Morales, J., Pérez, S. et al. Meta-analysis on the efficacy and safety of anterior vertebral body tethering in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Eur Spine J 32, 140–148 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-022-07448-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-022-07448-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation