• Spine · May 2008

    Comparative Study

    Comparison of radiographic outcomes for the treatment of scoliotic curves greater than 100 degrees: wires versus hooks versus screws.

    • Kei Watanabe, Lawrence G Lenke, Keith H Bridwell, Yongjung J Kim, Kota Watanabe, Young-Woo Kim, Youngbae B Kim, Marsha Hensley, and Georgia Stobbs.
    • Niigata University, Japan.
    • Spine. 2008 May 1; 33 (10): 1084-92.

    Study DesignA retrospective comparative study.ObjectiveTo compare the efficacy and safety of several different anchors in the apical levels of scoliotic curves > or = 100 degrees using radiographic outcomes and clinical complications.Summary Of Background DataTo the best of our knowledge, no reports have compared various anchors at the apical level for correction of scoliosis curves > or = 100 degrees.MethodsSixty-eight scoliosis patients (44 neuromuscular, 21 idiopathic, and 3 congenital) with major curves > or = 100 degrees (mean, 112.7 degrees; range, 100 degrees -159 degrees ) who underwent segmental spinal instrumentation and fusion with different anchors in the apical level were analyzed. All patients had a minimum 2-year follow-up (mean, 4.0 years; range, 2.0-10.5) and were divided into Group W (sublaminar wires n = 26), Group H (hooks n = 18), Group A (anterior vertebral screws n = 7), and Group PS (pedicle screws n = 17) based on the type of apical anchor used. Radiographic parameters and complications were investigated.ResultsThe 4 groups did not demonstrate any significant differences in gender, age at surgery, preoperative major Cobb angle, or curve flexibility (all P > 0.05). However, the PS group demonstrated a shorter follow-up period compared with the other 3 groups (P < 0.05). The PS group demonstrated the greatest correction rate, smallest loss of correction (P < 0.05), and greatest amount of correction of the apical vertebral translation (P < 0.0005) at ultimate follow-up. There were 4 cases (5.9%) of pseudarthrosis (3 in Group W, 1 in Group H; P > 0.05), 6 cases (8.8%) of implant failure (4 in Group W, 2 in Group H; P > 0.05). Despite one (1.5%) intraoperative neurologic complication (differences among groups, P > 0.05), there was no permanent neurologic deficit.ConclusionAll 4 constructs were able to achieve and maintain acceptable correction safely without permanent neurologic deficit and all demonstrated acceptable implant failure rate. Pedicle screw constructs in the apical levels demonstrated the best coronal correction, smallest loss of correction, and greatest amount of apical vertebral translation correction of the major Cobb angle compared with the other constructs without neurologic complications.

      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…