• Spine · Sep 2004

    Review Comparative Study

    Results of thoracoscopic instrumented fusion versus conventional posterior instrumented fusion in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis undergoing selective thoracic fusion.

    • Hee-Kit Wong, Hwan-Tak Hee, Zhirong Yu, and David Wong.
    • Division of Spinal Surgery, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, National University Hospital, Singapore. doswhk@nus.edu.sg
    • Spine. 2004 Sep 15;29(18):2031-8; discussion 2039.

    Study DesignRetrospective review of 31 consecutive female patients with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis undergoing selective thoracic fusion.ObjectiveTo compare safety and efficacy of two techniques in treating adolescent idiopathic scoliosis undergoing selective thoracic fusion.Summary Of Background DataThere is paucity in the literature comparing posterior versus thoracoscopic instrumented fusion in scoliosis.MethodsNineteen patients (group 1) underwent posterior instrumented fusion. Twelve patients (group 2) had thoracoscopic anterior instrumented fusion. All patients had a minimum of 25 months of follow-up observation.ResultsBoth groups were similar in terms of age at menarche and surgery. Preoperative Cobb angles in the coronal (erect and bending) and sagittal planes did not differ between the two groups. Group 1 patients had higher estimated blood loss (P = 0.006). Operative time (P < 0.001) and intensive care unit stay (P = 0.01) were longer in group 2 patients. There was no difference in parenteral analgesia requirement. There were no complications in group 1. Complications in group 2 included lobar collapse (1) and scapula winging (1). Improvement in scoliosis among group 1 patients averaged 77 (1 week), 72 (6 months), and 67% (most recent follow-up review). In group 2 patients, mean improvement in scoliosis was 66 (1 week), 62 (6 months), and 62% (most recent follow-up review). The differences between the two groups in terms of scoliosis improvement were not significant. Thoracic kyphosis (T2-T12) did not increase significantly with thoracoscopic versus posterior instrumentation. No significant change in lumbar lordosis (T12-S1) was noted with either procedure.ConclusionsThe efficacy of thoracoscopic surgery was similar to standard posterior procedures. Advantages included lower intraoperative blood loss. The longer operative time and intensive care unit stay were attributed to the steep learning curve of this technique.

      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…