Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 1 de 1
Filtrar
Mais filtros








Base de dados
Intervalo de ano de publicação
1.
Spine Deform ; 5(4): 277-282, 2017 07.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-28622904

RESUMO

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective review of a multicenter database. OBJECTIVES: To compare the radiographic outcomes of patients who had undergone the Shilla Growth Guidance System (SGGS) and traditional growing rod (GR) treatment for management of early-onset scoliosis (EOS) through definitive treatment. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The efficacy of surgical treatment of EOS can only be determined after definitive treatment has been completed. We wanted to review our experience with the SGGS and GR for management of EOS through definitive treatment. METHODS: Patients who had surgical treatment with SGGS or GR and had undergone definitive treatment were included. The patients were matched by age, preoperative curve magnitude, and diagnosis. The study population consisted of 36 patients (18 in each group) whose mean age at initial surgery was as follows: SGGS, 7.9 years; and GR, 7.7 years (not significant [NS]). Length of follow-up after initial surgery was 6.1 years for SGGS and 7.4 years for GR (NS). Definitive treatment was posterior spinal fusion (15 SGGS, 17 GR), implant removal (3 SGGS), or completion of lengthenings (1 GR). RESULTS: The preoperative curve was 61 degrees for SGGS and 65 degrees for GR (NS). After index surgery, the major curve decreased to 24 degrees (-37 degrees) for SGGS and 38 (-27 degrees) for GR (p < .05). At last follow-up, the major curve was 34 degrees (44%) for SGGS and 36 degrees (45%) for GR (NS). The initial T1-T12 length for SGGS was 188 mm and for GR, 181 mm; at last follow-up, SGGS was 234 mm (46 mm increase) and GR was 233 mm (52 mm increase) (NS). CONCLUSION: Our analysis shows the final radiographic outcomes (and changes) and complications (implant-related and infection) between the SGGS and GR groups were not statistically different. The main difference between the two groups was the threefold difference in overall surgeries.


Assuntos
Procedimentos Ortopédicos/instrumentação , Escoliose/diagnóstico por imagem , Escoliose/cirurgia , Fusão Vertebral/instrumentação , Adolescente , Assistência ao Convalescente , Criança , Bases de Dados Factuais , Crescimento e Desenvolvimento/fisiologia , Humanos , Aparelhos Ortopédicos/efeitos adversos , Aparelhos Ortopédicos/estatística & dados numéricos , Próteses e Implantes/efeitos adversos , Radiografia/métodos , Estudos Retrospectivos , Curvaturas da Coluna Vertebral/diagnóstico por imagem , Curvaturas da Coluna Vertebral/cirurgia , Fusão Vertebral/efeitos adversos , Coluna Vertebral/crescimento & desenvolvimento , Vértebras Torácicas/diagnóstico por imagem , Vértebras Torácicas/cirurgia , Resultado do Tratamento
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA