• Spine J · Jan 2010

    Comparative Study

    Analysis of instrumentation/fusion survivorship without reoperation after primary posterior multiple anchor instrumentation and arthrodesis for idiopathic scoliosis.

    • Marc A Asher, Sue Min Lai, and Douglas C Burton.
    • Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Kansas University Medical Center, 3901 Rainbow Blvd., Mail Stop 3017, Kansas City, KS 66160, USA. masher@kumc.edu
    • Spine J. 2010 Jan 1;10(1):5-15.

    BackgroundDuring the past 25 years, spinal instrumentation systems and surgical techniques used to treat idiopathic scoliosis have evolved, achieving fewer patient restrictions during arthrodesis healing, shorter constructs, and better correction. The purposes of this retrospective comparative study were to determine the survivorship of the implant/fusion without reoperation and the risk factors influencing such survival.MethodsFrom 1989 through 2002, 208 consecutive patients (index patient included, age 10-20 years) underwent primary posterior instrumentation and arthrodesis with the same multiple anchor implant system by one surgeon, a co-designer of the system. Two hundred seven were followed for more than 2 years; reoperation status was available for them at an average follow-up of 8.3 years. Twenty-one independent demographic, deformity, instrumentation, and process variables possibly influencing the need for reoperation were studied by comparing the reoperated group with the unreoperated group.ResultsNineteen patients (9.2%) had reoperation; 16 (7.7%) were for indications related to posterior spine instrumentation. Survival of the implant/fusion without reoperation for spine instrumentation-related indications was 96% (95% confidence interval [CI], 93.2-98.7%) at 5 years, 91.6% (95% CI, 86.9-96.3%) at 10 years, 87.1% (95% CI, 79.5-94.6%) at 15 years, and 73.7% (95% CI, 48.6-98.6%) at 16 years, when the number at risk was nine. Reoperation need was significantly influenced by two implant variables: transverse connector design (p=.0012) and the lower instrumented vertebra anchors used (p=.0004). At 9 years, the longest interval allowing comparison, survival of the implant/fusion without reoperation for these two variables was 100% (six subjects at risk) compared to 82% (95% CI, 74.2-90.3%) with 59 patients still at risk for reoperation for those who did not have them, p=.0014.ConclusionsThe most stable lower instrumented vertebra anchor configuration, bilateral pedicle screws, and the stronger transverse connector design, closed drop entry, provided the best survival of the implant/fusion without reoperation with this system and the techniques used at 9-year follow-up. We hope that this post-market study using survivorship techniques will be a guide for studies of other spinal implants.Copyright 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

      Pubmed     Full text   Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…