Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Study Design

Retrospective.

Objective

Severe curves >100° in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) are rare and require careful operative planning. The aim of this study was to assess baseline, perioperative, and 2-year differences between anterior release with posterior instrumentation (AP), posterior instrumentation with posterior column osteotomies (P), and posterior instrumentation with 3-column vertebral osteotomies (VCR).

Methods

Two scoliosis datasets were queried for primary cases of severe thoracic AIS (≥100°) with 2-year follow-up. Pre- and 2-year postoperative radiographic measures (2D and estimated 3D kyphosis), clinical measurements, and SRS-22 outcomes were compared between three approaches.

Results

Sixty-one patients were included: 16 AP (26%), 38 P (62%), 7 VCR (11%). Average age was 14.4 ± 2.0 years; 75.4% were female. Preoperative thoracic curve magnitude (AP: 112°, P: 115°, VCR: 126°, P = 0.09) and T5-T12 kyphosis (AP: 38°, P: 59°, VCR: 70°, P = 0.057) were similar between groups. Estimated 3D kyphosis was less in AP vs P (−12° vs 4°, P = 0.016). Main thoracic curves corrected to 36° in AP vs 49° and 48° for P and VCR, respectively (P = 0.02). Change in estimated 3D kyphosis was greater in AP vs P and VCR (34° vs 13°, P = 0.009; 34° vs 7°, P = 0.046). One incomplete spinal cord injury had residual deficits (P; 1/61, 1.6%). All SRS-22 domains improved postoperatively.

Conclusion

All approaches obtained satisfactory coronal and sagittal correction, but AP had smaller residual coronal deformity and greater kyphosis restoration than the other approaches. This information may help inform the decision of whether to include an anterior release for large thoracic AIS curves.

Keywords

adolescent idiopathic scoliosis severe scoliosis osteotomy vertebral column resection kyphosis anterior release fusion posterior fusion

Introduction

Adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) affects 0.5%-5.2% of the population.¹ Approximately 0.1% ultimately undergo surgery, a decision based in part on maturity at the time of the main coronal curve measuring greater than 45-50°.^2,3 Posterior pedicle screw instrumentation with or without posterior column osteotomies (P) is the primary operative technique for modern pediatric scoliosis surgery.^4-7 However, large, stiff curves (variably defined as approximately >80° or with <20° flexibility) are traditionally seen as distinct entities that may require more extensive corrective maneuvers.^6,7 Combined anterior release with posterior instrumentation (AP) and posterior vertebral column resections (VCR) allow for increased correction via creation of greater three column flexibility.^8-12 These procedures are also considered options for significant sagittal deformity; relative hypokyphosis or frank thoracic lordosis a component of AIS that is exacerbated with more severe coronal and axial deformity. Measurement of sagittal deformity is also difficult in 2D particularly as the deformity in the other planes increases. Thoracic kyphosis is underestimated by traditional 2D imaging.¹³

Larger AIS curves may lose flexibility as the curve progresses and traction radiographs can give a sense of coronal curve flexibility. For some patients, preoperative halo-gravity traction may be considered as well. Ultimately a decision regarding the surgical approach will be required. In decades past an anterior release was common for curves that did not bend below 50°. The additional power of correction that was enabled by thoracic pedicle screw fixation and posterior column osteotomies, reduced the indications for anterior release. Similarly, the VCR procedure became safer with more advanced intraoperative neuromonitoring and its use grew particularly in more angular deformity.

Given the potential for all 3 of these approaches to be utilized in the more severe cases of AIS, we sought to compare the radiographic, clinical, or patient reported outcomes between AP, VCR, and P for thoracic AIS curves >100°. The purpose of this study is to assess the baseline, peri-operative, and 2-year differences between these three approaches for index AIS cases with severe thoracic curves.

Materials and Methods

Two prospective, multicenter, scoliosis studies were queried for patients undergoing primary surgical treatment for AIS. Written consent was obtained from all patients for inclusion into the studies. Patients ≤21 years old who underwent index surgery for idiopathic scoliosis with a main thoracic curve >100° were included. Only patients with 2-year follow-up were included. Patients with prior spinal surgery where excluded. Patients that may have been enrolled in both registries were identified and included only once based on matching site, surgeon, date of birth, and date of surgery. Standard demographic, radiographic data, and Scoliosis Research Society-22r (SRS-22r) outcome questionnaires were collected at baseline and 2-year post-operative. Deformity measurements included: curve magnitude, curve flexibility (baseline only), T5-T12 kyphosis, and estimated 3D kyphosis calculated from 2D radiographic measurements as described by Parvaresh et al.²¹ Intraoperative variables including surgical approach, estimated blood loss (EBL), and complications were collected.

Baseline, intraoperative, and 2-year post-operative outcomes were compared between the 3 approaches with ANOVA for continuous variables and chi square test for categorical variables. Non-parametric data was analyzed with Kruskal Wallis and Mann Whitney testing and medians were reported. Bonferroni post hoc comparisons were performed in the event of main effect significance. Significance was set at P < 0.05.

Results

Sixty-one patients were included: 16 AP (16%), 38 P (62%), 7 VCR (11%). The average age in the cohort was 14.4 ± 2.0 years. Forty-six (75.4%) subjects were female. There were no differences in Risser score (P = 0.4) or any clinical measurement between groups. (Table 1). Preoperative thoracic curve magnitude (AP: 112 ± 17°, P: 115 ± 12°, VCR: 126 ± 15°, P = 0.09) and 2D T5-T12 kyphosis (AP: 38 ± 32°, P: 59 ± 32°, VCR: 70 ± 47°, P = 0.057) were not significantly different between groups (Table 2). There was less estimated 3D kyphosis for the AP group (−12°, meaning lordotic) vs P (4°) and VCR (7°), P = 0.016. There was no difference between deformity angular ratio (calculated by dividing the degrees of deformity by the number of involved spinal segments, DAR; P = 0.081) or percentage of curve flexibility between groups (AP: 17.6%, P: 26.1%, VCR: 23.2%, P = 0.231, Table 2). Preoperative, the only SRS-22r domain that was significantly different between groups was Self-Image which was worse in P vs VCR (2.7 vs 3.5, P = 0.003, AP: 3.0). Total score for the SRS22r was not different between groups (Table 3).

Table 1.

Demographics.

	AP (n = 16)	P (n = 38)	VCR (n = 7)	Totals (n = 61)	P-value
Age	14.1 (2.5)	14.5 (1.8)	14.5 (2.4)	14.4 (2.0)	0.836
Sex					0.456
Female	13	29	4	46
Male	3	9	3	15
Risser					.446
0	3	5	2	10
1	1	3	0	4
2	2	10	0	12
3	2	8	0	10
4	2	8	3	13
5	4	4	2	10

AP = combined anterior release with posterior instrumentation; P = posterior with posterior column osteotomies; VCR = posterior vertebral column resection.

Table 2.

Pre- and Two Year Post-operative Radiographic Measurements.

	Baseline				2 Year Post-operative
	AP	P	VCR	P-Value	AP	P	VCR	P-Value
MT curve
Cobb (°)	112 (17)	115 (12)	126 (15)	.099	36 (12)	49 (17)	48 (12)	0.022^a
DAR (°)	14.6 (1.7)	14.6 (2.5)	16.7 (2.3)	0.08	4.7 (2.)	6.7 (2.6)	6.3 (2.0)	0.021^a
Flexibility (%)	17.6 (9.4)	26.1 (18.7)	23.2 (13.1)	.231	—	—	—	—
Correction (%)	—	—	—	—	69 (10)	58 (13)	62 (9)	0.021^a
UT curve
Cobb (°)	47 (20)	59 (15)	59 (14)	0.046^a	21 (16)	34 (15)	33 (9)	0.016^a
DAR (°)	8.2 (2.6)	9.6 (2.4)	9.4 (1.7)	0.14	3.7 (2.6)	5.5 (2.2)	5.6 (2.0)	0.033^a
Flexibility (%)	12.8 (15.1)	18.4 (15.1)	39.1 (13.0)	0.04^b	—	—	—
Correction (%)	—	—	—	—	55 (19)	42 (17)	54 (24)	0.035^a
Lumbar curve
Cobb (°)	72 (19)	63 (16)	72 (12)	0.11	28 (13)	34 (18)	34 (15)	.54
DAR (°)	12.5 (3.2)	10.2 (3.7)	12.0 (3.7)	0.078	4.0 (1.4)	5.0 (2.1)	4.7 (2.5)	.238
Flexibility (%)	47.5 (20.4)	45.5 (24.3)	31.5 (19.4)	0.536
Correction (%)					56 (30)	45 (33)	54 (17)	.427
Sagittal plane
T5-T12 (°)	38 (32)	59 (32)	70 (47)	0.057	29 (16)	32 (17)	32 (17)	.82
3D Kyphosis (°)	−12 (21)	4.2 (23)	7.1 (40)	0.016^a	23 (12)	18 (11)	19 (13)	.38
Change in 3D Kyph (°)	—	—	—		34 (14)	13 (24)	7 (29)	.006^a,b

AP = combined anterior release with posterior instrumentation; P = posterior with posterior column osteotomies; VCR = posterior vertebral column resection; MT = main thoracic; UT = upper thoracic. DAR = deformity angular ratio.

^aSignificance between AP and P.

^bSignificance between AP and VCR.

Table 3.

Pre- and Two Year Post-operative Radiographic Parameters Patient Reported Outcomes and Clinical Measurements.

	Baseline				2 Year Post-operative
	AP	P	VCR	P-Value	AP	P	VCR	P-value
SRS-22r, 22
Pain	4.1 (0.5)	4.0 (0.9)	4.1 (0.5)	.918	4.5 (0.4)	4.1 (0.9)	4.5 (0.4)	.533
Self-image	3.0 (0.7)	2.7 (0.7)	3.5 (0.5)	.014^a	4.4 (0.4)	4.1 (0.7)	4.6 (0.1)	.106
Function	4.2 (0.6)	3.9 (0.7)	4.2 (0.5)	.419	4.7 (0.4)	4.2 (0.7)	4.6 (0.5)	.032^a
Mental health	3.8 (0.9)	3.9 (0.7)	4.2 (0.5)	.551	4.3 (0.5)	4.3 (.6)	4.3 (0.4)	.985
Satisfaction	3.5 (0.7)	2.9 (1.1)	3.5 (1.3)	.127	4.4 (0.7)	4.4 (0.8)	4.9 (0.2)	.115
Total	3.8 (0.5)	3.6 (0.7)	4.0 (0.3)	.128	4.5 (0.3)	4.2 (0.5)	4.5 (0.2)	.159
Clinical measurements
Shoulder HD (cm)	2.0 (1.1)	1.7 (1.5)	1.4 (.9)	.69	1.3 (1.5)	1.3 (1.0)	0.8 (0.2)	.685
Max ATR (°)	23 (6)	27 (10)	24 (5)	.261	13 (7)	16 (8)	16 (7)	.604
CD (cm)	2.1 (1.5)	1.9 (1.5)	1.5 (1.0)	.615	1.9 (2.4)	1.0 (1.0)	0.4 (0.7)	.243
Trunk shift (cm)	4.2 (2.0)	3.6 (1.7)	3.9 (2.8)	.69	1.9 (2.3	1.0 (1.0)	0.6 (0.5)	.126

AP = combined anterior release with posterior instrumentation; P = posterior with posterior column osteotomies; VCR = posterior vertebral column resection; SRS = Scoliosis Research Society; HD = height difference; ATR = Maximum axial trunk rotation; CD = Coronal decompensation.

^aSignificance between AP and P.

The AP group had an average of 5.0 ± 1.7 discs removed. The approach was open in 8 and thoracoscopic in 8 of the 16 patients. The posterior procedure was performed on the same day in 9 cases and staged in 7. During the posterior portion of the procedure, intraoperative traction was utilized in 43% (7/16 = 43%) and posterior column osteotomies were performed in 81% of cases. Similarly, in the P group, 53% were placed in traction during the procedure and the majority had posterior column osteotomies at multiple levels (5.7 ± 3.3). The VCR procedures were all performed from a posterior only approach and an average of 1.7 vertebrae (range 1-3) were resected. For each of the 3 approaches, an average of 13 posterior levels were instrumented and fused.

Two-year postoperative thoracic curve magnitude was significantly smaller in AP: 36 ± 12° vs P: 49 ± 17°, (P = 0.021, VCR: 48 ± 12° not different than either). In addition, there was a greater percentage correction of the MT curve in the AP: 69 ± 10% compared to the P: 58 ± 14% group, (P = 0.021, VCR: 62 ± 9% not different than either). Postoperative lateral 2D T5-T12 kyphosis (AP: 29 ± 16°, P: 32 ± 17°, VCR: 32 ± 17°, P = 0.82) and estimated 3D kyphosis (AP: 22 ± 12°, P: 18 ± 11°, VCR: 19 ± 13°, P = 0.82) were not different between groups. However, the preoperative to 2-year postoperative change in estimated 3D kyphosis was significantly greater in AP: 34 ± 14° vs both P: 13 ± 24°, P = 0.009 and VCR: 7 ± 29°, P = 0.046, (Tables 2 and 3).

Operative time was significantly shorter for P with a median of 350 (range 348-453 minutes) compared to both AP: 623 (range 520-800, P < 0.001) and VCR: 790 (range 452-942 minutes, P = 0.006). Intraoperative neuromonitoring changes were frequent (AP: 19%, P: 45%, VCR: 43%, P = 0.215). There were no differences in length of stay or estimated blood loss (Table 2). Figures 1 -3 demonstrate the correction that can be achieved with each procedure.

Figure 1.

A patient with a preoperative main thoracic curve of 106°, 29° of 2D T5-T12 kyphosis, and −16° of estimated 3D T5-T12 kyphosis (left) who was treated with a combined anterior release with posterior instrumentation and corrected to 20° of scoliosis, 30° of 2D T5-T12 kyphosis, and 32° of estimated 3D kyphosis at 2 years (right).

Figure 2.

A patient with a preoperative main thoracic curve of 107°, 33° of 2D T5-T12 kyphosis, and −13° of estimated 3D T5-T12 kyphosis (left) who was treated with a posterior instrumentation fusion and corrected to 40° of scoliosis, 29° of 2D T5-T12 kyphosis, and 20° of estimated 3D kyphosis at 2 years (right).

Figure 3.

A patient with a preoperative main thoracic curve of 110°, 88° of 2D T5-T12 kyphosis, and 30° of estimated 3D T5-T12 kyphosis (left) who was treated with a posterior instrumentation with 3 column vertebral osteotomies and corrected to 46° of scoliosis, 31° of 2D T5-T12 kyphosis, and 18° of estimated 3D kyphosis at 2 years (right).

There were 27 complications categorized according to the Clavien-Dindo-Sink (CDS) classification listed in Table 4.¹⁴ Eight of the 10 CDS II complications in the P group were excessive blood loss. Incidental misplaced hardware was detected in two posterior cases. A total of 5 cases were aborted, all of which were completed on a later date (AP: 6%, P: 8%, VCR: 14%, P = 0.8). Four cases were aborted due to IONM changes (P: 3, VCR: 1) and one in the AP group after major blood loss. Of the four aborted due to IONM changes, two in the P group had no sequalae, 1 in the P group had a CDS IVb incomplete spinal cord injury with a decreased lower extremity mobility and neurogenic bladder deficit remaining at 2 years follow-up, and 1 in the VCR group that resulted in CDS IVa incomplete spinal cord injury where function returned by the one year postoperative visit. No issues were noted in the patient whose case was aborted due to blood loss. A CDS IVa incomplete spinal cord injury occurred in the AP group without IONM changes; the patient recovered within one year (Table 4).

Table 4.

Operative Variables and Complications.

	AP	P	VCR	P-value
Total OR time (minutes)^c	623 (520-800)	350 (348-453)	790 (452-942)	<0.001^a,b
Levels fused^c	13 (1)	13 (1)	13 (1)	.374
EBL (mL)	1700 (900)	1400 (700)	1650 (1300)	0.488
NM change (n = 23)	3	17	3	0.215
Case aborted (n = 5)	1	3	1	0.807
Complications (n = 27)
CDS1 (4)	1	3	0
CDSII (13)	2	10	1
CDSIII (6)	2	2	2
CDSIva (3)	1	1	1
CDSIvb (1)	0	1	0
Length of stay (days)	16.6 (16.1)	9.3 (6.1)	14 (6.4)	0.059

AP = combined anterior release with posterior instrumentation; P = posterior with posterior column osteotomies; VCR = posterior vertebral column resection OR = operating room; EBL = estimated blood loss; NM = neuromonitoring.

^aSignificance between AP and P.

^bSignificance between VCR and P.

^cMedian and range reported, data not parametric.

Discussion

Severe AIS with a coronal curve greater than 100° are rare in regions with advanced health care delivery systems, yet patients do reach these levels of deformity for a variety of reasons.³ Curves greater than 70-80° are associated with compromised lung function emphasizing the medical need for surgical correction.¹⁵ However, the approach that obtains maximal correction in all three planes with minimal complications is not well established in the literature for this patient population. In our study, combined anterior release with posterior instrumentation created more coronal correction and greater increases in kyphosis than posterior instrumentation with osteotomies and compared to VCR, restored more thoracic kyphosis than a posterior approach with a VCR. The AP approach resulted in the smallest residual coronal MT deformity with correction from 112 ± 17° to 36 ± 12° at 2 years postoperative. This compares to residual coronal curves of 49 ± 17 in the posterior only group and 48 ± 12° in the VCR group.

Coronal and sagittal plane correction is created differently by each surgical approach. Standard posterior approaches lack anterior column shortening options and thus works via multi-segmental osteotomies to loosen and lengthen the posterior column. Traditional posterior column releases (such as Ponte osteotomies) have been associated with several degrees of increase in thoracic kyphosis and coronal correction per level. This may or may not be sufficient given the coronal and axial correction maneuvers tend to “reposition” the lengthened anterior column back into the global sagittal plane.^16-19 The anterior approach on the other hand is associated with anterior column shortening secondary to the removal of the intervertebral discs.¹⁷ VCR of course removes an entire spinal segment, translating the spinal column up 35-60° in the plane(s) of choice.^11,12,16

We compared these three approaches in our cohort, but with little precedent for reference in the literature. Lenke et al.¹¹ reported outcomes for 35 consecutive pediatric scoliosis patients undergoing VCR, but with a mixed cohort, including severe kyphosis, that is not directly generalizable to AIS. Suk et al²⁰’s posterior-only pedicle instrumentation for severe curves up to 105° reports kyphosis restoration from 22° ± 10° to 29° ± 10° post-operatively (P = 0.0001). Dobbs et al.⁶ conversely reports thoracic flattening in both AP and P approaches, the former decreasing from 28° to 18° post-operatively, the latter 21° to 15°. Like Suk, the patients in our study achieved kyphosis on 2D lateral T5-T12 measurements of ∼30° without significant difference between groups (Table 2).

Novel 3D reconstructive technology has unmasked the loss of thoracic kyphosis typical of AIS, yet difficult to appreciate and quantify on 2D radiographs.^13,22,23 This introduces a measurement bias in 2D imaging, estimated to undershoot 3D T5-T12 kyphosis measured in the local sagittal reference plane of each vertebrae, rather than the 2D plane of the radiograph, by an average of 11° to as much as 40°.¹³ This “measurement error” of kyphosis increases as coronal deformity increases, introducing substantial error in a cohort of large curves as is this series. Considering this, our analysis included 3D kyphosis calculations from Parvaresh et al²²’s validated formula, defined as 18.1 + (0.81*2D T5-T12 sagittal Cobb) - (0.54*2D coronal Cobb). In the AP patient group, T5-12 kyphosis averaged 38° on 2D radiographs, but 12° of lordosis by 3D calculation. Similarly, 3D calculations captured the substantial 34° increase (restoration) of thoracic kyphosis obtained by AP approach vs just 13° by P and 7° by VCR. Overall, these results suggest that the removal of multiple intervertebral discs anteriorly followed by posterior release and instrumentation allows for superior multiplanar deformity reconstruction in the thoracic spine.

Intraoperative Profile and Complications

The intraoperative and complication profiles between groups were real, but largely similar between approaches. Notably, the oft reported and feared complications associated with specific approaches were not borne out in this study. Early VCR series described the technique as “safe but challenging,” reporting significant blood loss and long operating times while stressing the necessity of neuromonitoring due heightened post-operative neurologic deficits.^11,12 VCR in our study was not an outlier over other approaches in any of these domains, although operating time was greater than standard posterior with osteotomies limited to the posterior column. Permanent neurologic deficit in our study also did not occur in VCR: the one reported case of permanent deficit underwent the standard posterior approach, underscoring the high-risk nature of these cases regardless of approach.

The AP and VCR groups are uniquely associated with pulmonary complications due to direct manipulation of the pleural space.^23,24 While one AP patient experienced reportable atelectasis in our study (1/16, 6.3%), the VCR group reported the most pulmonary events requiring procedural intervention (chest tubes, thoracentesis; 3/7, 43%). This percentage may be inflated due to small sample size (3/7, 43%), but pleural effusion is a noted complication of VCR in large pediatric cohorts.²⁵

Patient Reported Outcomes

The lowest of all recorded SRS-22r scores was preoperative Self-Image for posterior group at 2.7 ± 0.6. Large operative AIS cohorts cite preoperative Self-Image closer to 3.3.^27-29 The association of curve magnitude with Self-Image is a well-studied questioned with inconsistent results. Belli et al³⁰ found significant decrements in Self-Image reporting with increasing coronal curve size, with a nadir of 3.3 for 50° to 60° curves. However, other studies suggest that the relationship is more complicated, with multiple papers evaluating surface topography, psychological function, and demographics as possible influencers.^26,28,31-34 There is little consensus between these, other than that most tend to improve post-operatively. Self-Image also improved from pre-to postoperatively for all groups in our study, (2.9 ± 0.6 to 4.2 ± 0.6) as did all domain scores for each group (Table 3).

Limitations

There are several limitations to this study. First, the choice of approach was of course not randomized and selection bias and unequal distribution of the approaches was present - Posterior group comprised nearly two-thirds of the study population with VCR contributing only 7 patients. As such, several variables that did not reach significance between groups and we may be underpowered to do so. Limited sample size is an unavoidable limitation due to the rarity of severe scoliosis and the choice of approach may potentially be influenced by a lack of surgeon familiarity/comfort for AP and VCR approaches.^11,24,25 Second, we did not have 3D imaging for these cases and severe coronal and apical rotation of the spine make lateral radiographic measurements particularly difficult.^21,22 As such, details of the deformities are missed in this analysis (axial plane) but to gain a better understanding than what 2D radiographs alone can provide, we used surrogate measures of deformity, including a calculated estimation of 3D kyphosis²² and clinical angle of trunk rotation for the axial plane. Lastly, surgeon preference and institutional/regional bias may influence the chosen surgical approach.³⁵ If inconsistent between subjects, parameters determining who receives what surgery may differ and thus conceal confounders that placed patients in specific operative categories. This potential is an inherent challenge in a retrospective review that lacks data to explain decision making. Nonetheless, the variables captured in this study found minimal preoperative differences between groups.

We chose to compare three approaches when the more obvious might have been to compare posterior only to anterior plus posterior to isolate the effect of the anterior release; or to compare the 2 posterior-only approaches. Given that VCR and AP are both being done in this population, we felt it was important to include all 3 approaches. Specifically looking at the effect of the anterior release, the AP vs P comparisons identify greater coronal and sagittal plane correction when an anterior release is included. The extent of the additional correction in exchange for a longer procedure may continue to be debated, but we hope the information will inform shared decision making with future patients and surgeons facing the decisions surrounding the management of thoracic AIS >100°. We were unable to identify specific advantages of VCR over Posterior in this cohort.

Conclusion

Severe scoliosis greater than 100° is rare and requires thoughtful planning to obtain maximal safe correction in all planes. Combined anterior release with posterior instrumentation, posterior instrumentation with osteotomies, and posterior vertebral column resection each obtain satisfactory coronal correction with similar complication profiles. However, there was more thoracic kyphosis created with greater coronal curve correction with the anterior/posterior combined approach compared to a posterior only approach. VCR was the least commonly applied approach to this population, and although there may be exceptions, it is likely more appropriately reserved for spinal pathologies other than primary AIS.

Footnotes

Authors Note

Study Conducted at Rady Children’s Hospital, San Diego.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by the in part by a grant from the John and Marcella Fox Research Fund and in part by grants to the Setting Scoliosis Straight Foundation in support of Harms Study Group research from DePuy Synthes Spine, EOS imaging, Stryker Spine, Medtronic, NuVasive, Zimmer Biomet and the Food and Drug Administration.

Ethical Statement

Harms Study Group Investigators

Aaron Buckland, MD; Melbourne Orthopaedic Group & Royal Children’s Hospital

Amer Samdani, MD; Shriners Hospitals for Children—Philadelphia

Amit Jain, MD; Johns Hopkins Hospital

Baron Lonner, MD; Mount Sinai Hospital

Benjamin Roye, MD; Columbia University

Burt Yaszay, MD; Seattle Children’s Hospital

Chris Reilly, MD; BC Children’s Hospital

Daniel Hedequist, MD; Boston Children’s Hospital

Daniel Sucato, MD; Texas Scottish Rite Hospital

David Clements, MD; Cooper Bone & Joint Institute New Jersey

Firoz Miyanji, MD; BC Children’s Hospital

Harry Shufflebarger, MD; Paley Orthopedic & Spine Institute

Jack Flynn, MD; Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia

John Asghar, MD; Paley Orthopedic & Spine Institute

Jean Marc Mac Thiong, MD; CHU Sainte-Justine

Joshua Pahys, MD; Shriners Hospitals for Children—Philadelphia

Juergen Harms, MD; Klinikum Karlsbad-Langensteinbach, Karlsbad

Keith Bachmann, MD; University of Virginia

Lawrence Lenke, MD; Columbia University

Lori Karol, MD; Children’s Hospital, Denver Colorado

Mark Abel, MD; University of Virginia

Mark Erickson, MD; Children’s Hospital, Denver Colorado

Michael Glotzbecker, MD; Rainbow Children’s Hospital, Cleveland

Michael Kelly, MD; Rady Children’s Hospital

Michael Vitale, MD; Columbia University

Michelle Marks, PT, MA; Setting Scoliosis Straight Foundation

Munish C Gupta, MD; Washington University

Nicholas Fletcher, MD; Emory University

Noelle Larson, MD; Mayo Clinic Rochester Minnesota

Patrick Cahill, MD; Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia

Paul Sponseller, MD; Johns Hopkins Hospital

Peter Gabos, MD: Nemours/Alfred I. duPont Hospital for Children

Peter Newton, MD; Rady Children’s Hospital

Peter Sturm, MD; Cincinnati Children’s Hospital

Randal Betz, MD; Institute for Spine & Scoliosis

Stefan Parent, MD: CHU Sainte-Justine

Stephen George, MD; Nicklaus Children's Hospital

Steven Hwang, MD; Shriners Hospitals for Children—Philadelphia

Suken Shah, MD; Nemours/Alfred I. duPont Hospital for Children

Sumeet Garg, MD; Children’s Hospital, Denver Colorado

Tom Errico, MD; Nicklaus Children's Hospital

Vidyadhar Upasani, MD; Rady Children’s Hospital.

Fox Study Group Investigators

Amer Samdani, MD; Shriners Hospitals for Children—Philadelphia

Amit Jain, MD; Johns Hopkins Hospital

Baron Lonner, MD; Mount Sinai Hospital

Burt Yaszay, MD; Seattle Children’s Hospital

Daniel Sucato, MD; Texas Scottish Rite Hospital

David Bumpass, MD; Arkansas Children’s Hospital

David Polly, MD; University of Minnesota Medical Center

Han Jo Kim, MD; Hospital for Special Surgery

Harry Shufflebarger, MD; Paley Orthopedic & Spine Institute

John Asghar, MD; Paley Orthopedic & Spine Institute

John Emans, MD; Boston Children’s Hospital

Joshua Pahys, MD; Shriners Hospitals for Children—Philadelphia

Lawrence Lenke, MD; Columbia University

Mark Erickson, MD; Children’s Hospital, Denver Colorado

Michael Kelly, MD; Rady Children’s Hospital

Munish C Gupta, MD; Washington University

Oheneba Boachie-Adjei, MD; FOCOS Orthopedic Hospital

Paul Sponseller, MD; Johns Hopkins Hospital

Peter Newton, MD; Rady Children’s Hospital

Peter Sturm, MD; Cincinnati Children’s Hospital

Richard McCarthy, MD; Arkansas Children’s Hospital

Suken Shah, MD; Nemours/Alfred I. duPont Hospital for Children

Sumeet Garg, MD; Children’s Hospital, Denver Colorado

Vidyadhar Upasani, MD; Rady Children’s Hospital.

ORCID iDs

Lauren E. Stone

Peter O. Newton

Hiroki Oba

Munish C. Gupta

References

Konieczny

Senyurt

Krauspe

. Epidemiology of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. J Child Orthop. 2013;7(1):3-9. doi:10.1007/s11832-012-0457-4.

Minkara

Bainton

Tanaka

, et al.

High risk of mismatch between sanders and risser staging in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: are we guiding treatment using the wrong classification?

J Pediatr Orthop. 2020;40(2):60-64. doi:10.1097/BPO.0000000000001135.

Asher

Burton

. Adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: natural history and long term treatment effects. Scoliosis. 2006;1(1):2. doi:10.1186/1748-7161-1-2.

Kuklo

Potter

Polly

Jr , et al. Monaxial versus multiaxial thoracic pedicle screws in the correction of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Spine. 2005;30(18):2113-2120. doi:10.1097/01.brs.0000179260.73267.f4.

Luhmann

Lenke

Kim

, et al.

Thoracic adolescent idiopathic scoliosis curves between 70 degrees and 100 degrees: is anterior release necessary?

Spine. 2005;30(18):2061-2067. doi:10.1097/01.brs.0000179299.78791.96.

Dobbs

Lenke

Kim

, et al. Anterior/posterior spinal instrumentation versus posterior instrumentation alone for the treatment of adolescent idiopathic scoliotic curves more than 90 degrees. Spine. 2006;31(20):2386-2391. doi:10.1097/01.brs.0000238965.81013.c5.

Suk

Kim

. etal. Pedicle screw instrumentation in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS). Eur Spine J. 2012;21(1):13-22. doi:10.1007/s00586-011-1986-0.

Floman

Micheli

Penny

, et al. Combined anterior and posterior fusion in seventy-three spinally deformed patients: indications, results and complications. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1982;164:110-122.

Yamin

Xing

, et al. Staged surgical treatment for severe and rigid scoliosis. J Orthop Surg Res. 2008;3:26. doi:10.1186/1749-799X-3-26.

10.

Poe-Kochert

Thompson

, et al. One stage or two? A cohort analysis of anterior-posterior spinal fusions for severe pediatric scoliosis. Spine Deform. 2020;8(5):939-949. doi:10.1007/s43390-020-00128-y.

11.

Lenke

Sides

Koester

, et al. Vertebral column resection for the treatment of severe spinal deformity. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2010;468(3):687-699. doi:10.1007/s11999-009-1037-x.

12.

Suk

Chung

Lee

, et al. Posterior vertebral column resection in fixed lumbosacral deformity. Spine. 2005;30(23):E703-E710. doi:10.1097/01.brs.0000188190.90034.be.

13.

Newton

Fujimori

Doan

, et al. Defining the “Three-Dimensional sagittal plane” in thoracic adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2015;97(20):1694-1701. doi:10.2106/JBJS.O.00148.

14.

Guissé

Stone

Keil

, et al. Modified Clavien-Dindo-sink classification system for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Spine Deform. 2022;10(1):87-95. doi:10.1007/s43390-021-00394-4.

15.

Tsiligiannis

Grivas

. Pulmonary function in children with idiopathic scoliosis. Scoliosis. 2012;7:7. doi:10.1186/1748-7161-7-7.

16.

Menger

Davis

Bryant

. Spinal Osteotomy. In: Treasure Island, Petersburg, FL: StatPearls Publishing; 2022. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK499872/

17.

Pizones

Sánchez-Mariscal

Zúñiga

, et al. Ponte osteotomies to treat major thoracic adolescent idiopathic scoliosis curves allow more effective corrective maneuvers. Eur Spine J. 2015;24(7):1540-1546. doi:10.1007/s00586-014-3749-1.

18.

Rothenfluh

Stratton

Nnadi

, et al. A critical thoracic kyphosis is required to prevent sagittal plane deterioration in selective thoracic fusions in Lenke I and II AIS. Eur Spine J. 2019;28(12):3066-3075. doi:10.1007/s00586-019-06093-z.

19.

Watanabe

Nakamura

Iwanami

, et al. Vertebral derotation in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis causes hypokyphosis of the thoracic spine. BMC Muscoskel Disord. 2012;13:99. doi:10.1186/1471-2474-13-99.

20.

Suk

Kim

Cho

, et al.

Is anterior release necessary in severe scoliosis treated by posterior segmental pedicle screw fixation?

Eur Spine J. 2007;16:1359-1365. doi:10.1007/s00586-007-0334-x.

21.

Newton

Osborn

Bastrom

, et al. The 3D sagittal profile of thoracic versus lumbar major curves in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Spine Deform. 2019;7(1):60-65. doi:10.1016/j.jspd.2018.05.003.

22.

Parvaresh

Osborn

Reighard

, et al. Predicting 3D thoracic kyphosis using traditional 2D radiographic measurements in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Spine Deform. 2017;5(3):159-165. doi:10.1016/j.jspd.2016.12.002.

23.

Coe

Arlet

Donaldson

, et al. Complications in spinal fusion for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis in the new millennium. A report of the Scoliosis Research Society Morbidity and Mortality Committee. Spine. 2006;31(3):345-349. doi:10.1097/01.brs.0000197188.76369.13.

24.

Newton

Shea

Granlund

. Defining the pediatric spinal thoracoscopy learning curve: sixty-five consecutive cases. Spine. 2000;25(8):1028-1035. doi:10.1097/00007632-200004150-00019.

25.

Lenke

Newton

Sucato

, et al. Complications after 147 consecutive vertebral column resections for severe pediatric spinal deformity: a multicenter analysis. Spine. 2013;38(2):119-132. doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e318269fab1.

26.

Carreon

Kelly

Crawford

, et al. SRS-22R minimum clinically important difference and substantial clinical benefit after adult lumbar scoliosis surgery. Spine Deform. 2018;6(1):79-83. doi:10.1016/j.jspd.2017.05.006.

27.

Stone

Upasani

Pahys

. SRS-22r self-image after surgery for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis at 10 Year follow-up. Spine. 2023;10. doi:10.1097/BRS.0000000000004620.

28.

Asher

Min Lai

Burton

, et al. Scoliosis research society-22 patient questionnaire: responsiveness to change associated with surgical treatment. Spine. 2003;28(1):70-73. doi:10.1097/00007632-200301010-00016.

29.

Lonner

Ren

Bess

, et al. Surgery for the adolescent idiopathic scoliosis patients after skeletal maturity: early versus late surgery. Spine Deform. 2019;7(1):84-92. doi:10.1016/j.jspd.2018.05.012.

30.

Belli

Toselli

Latessa

, et al. Evaluation of self-perceived body image in adolescents with mild idiopathic scoliosis. Eur J Investig Health Psychol Educ. 2022;12(3):319-333. doi:10.3390/ejihpe12030023.

31.

Cheshire

Gardner

Berryman

, et al.

Do the SRS-22 self-image and mental health domain scores reflect the degree of asymmetry of the back in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis?

Scoliosis Spinal Disord. 2017;12:37. doi:10.1186/s13013-017-0144-9.

32.

Smith

Donaldson

Hedden

, et al. Parents’ and patients’ perceptions of postoperative appearance in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Spine. 2006;31(20):2367-2374. doi:10.1097/01.brs.0000240204.98960.dd.

33.

D'Andrea

Betz

Lenke

, et al.

Do radiographic parameters correlate with clinical outcomes in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis?

Spine. 2000;25(14):1795-1802. doi:10.1097/00007632-200007150-00010.

34.

Merola

Haher

Brkaric

, et al. A multicenter study of the outcomes of the surgical treatment of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis using the Scoliosis Research Society (SRS) outcome instrument. Spine. 2002;27(18):2046-2051. doi:10.1097/00007632-200209150-00015.

35.

Le Navéaux

Larson

Labelle

, et al. Minimize Implants Maximize Outcomes Study Group. Significant variability in surgeons’ preferred correction maneuvers and instrumentation strategies when planning adolescent idiopathic scoliosis surgery. Scoliosis Spinal Disord. 2018;13:21. doi:10.1186/s13013-018-0169-8.

Severe (>100 Degrees) Thoracic Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis – A Comparison of Surgical Approaches

Abstract

Study Design

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Keywords

Introduction

Materials and Methods

Results

Discussion

Intraoperative Profile and Complications

Patient Reported Outcomes

Limitations

Conclusion

Footnotes

Authors Note

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Funding

Ethical Statement

Harms Study Group Investigators

Fox Study Group Investigators

ORCID iDs

References