Is the anterior approach still superior to posterior correction in AIS regarding correction, fusion levels and kyphosis when modern posterior systems are used?

PURPOSE: The aim of our study is to compare anterior and posterior corrections of thoracic (Lenke I) and lumbar (Lenke V) curves when modern posterior pedicle screw systems with vertebral derotation techniques are used. Curves that could not be corrected with both systems were excluded. METHODS: A thoracic group (N = 56) of Lenke I AIS patients (18 anterior and 38 posterior) and a lumbar group (N = 42) of Lenke V patients (14 anterior and 28 posterior) with similar curves < 65° were identified. RESULTS: Thoracic group The mean postoperative correction (POC) was 68 ± 13.4% in the anterior and 72 ± 10.5% in the posterior group. The postoperative change in thoracic kyphosis was +4° and +5° respectively. The median length of fusion was eight segments in the posterior and seven segments in the anterior groups. In 89% the LIV was EV or shorter in the anterior, and in 71% of the posterior corrections. Lumbar group The mean POC was 75 ± 18.3% (anterior) and 72 ± 8.5% (posterior). The postoperative gain in lumbar lordosis was 0.8° (anterior) and 4° (posterior). The median length of fusion was five segments in both groups and there was no difference in relation of the LIV to the EV. CONCLUSION: With modern implants and derotation techniques, the posterior approach can achieve similar coronal correction, apical derotation and thoracic kyphosis with similar length of fusion and better lumbar lordosis restoration.

The indication of fusion to the pelvis in neuromuscular scoliosis is based on the underlying disease rather than on pelvic obliquity.

INTRODUCTION: The decision to instrument to L5 or ilium, in NMS, is usually based on radiologic factors, including pelvic obliquity (PO) > 15°, apex of curvature < L3, and Cobb angle > 60°. Since scoliosis in these patients is caused by a neurologic disease, we based our decision to stop at L5 on the presence of spasticity or flaccidity. PATIENTS & METHODS: The senior author did 109 primary fusions in NMS. Of those with DMD or SMA only 16% were instrumented to the ilium. The main factor for our decision was the correction potential of the truncal shift and PO in the supine traction radiographs and the absence of severe spasticity. RESULTS: The 57 patients with DMD/SMA had a mean preoperative curvature of 68°, PO of 17°, and truncal shift of 20°. 74% should have been instrumented to the pelvis, but only 16% were. Those instrumented shorter as the rule, were corrected from 74° to 26° and had a postoperative PO of 8°. There was no significant difference in postoperative correction and PO compared to those instrumented to L5 on standard protocol. Subsequent extension to the pelvis was needed in 1 CP patient. There were no significant changes after 2 years. Of the 20 patients instrumented to the pelvis 11 had cerebral palsy and a preop curvature of 89°, a PO of 21° and a truncal shift of 25°. DISCUSSION: The decision on instrumentation length should take flexibility and disease into consideration. If the trunk is centred over the pelvis, deterioration will not occur in absence of spasticity.

Derotation screws provide no advantage over polyaxial screws regarding coronal & sagittal correction in thoracic curves of AIS patients.

PURPOSE: We compared two techniques for thoracic apical derotation; one using conventional reduction screws (Single-Innie-SI) and one requiring special derotation screws that can be converted to monoaxial screws to enhance dorotation (Dual-Innie-DI) for coronal and sagittal correction and. METHODS: A total of 200 patients with thoracic AIS have been included. In the SI-Group (n = 127) the convex rod was applied first. Vertebral derotation was done by translation to the concave rod with the convex rod being in place and center of rotation (COR). In the DI-Group (n = 73) correction started with translation on the concave side as well but now followed by derotation around the concave rod using the DI-mechanism. RESULTS: The mean rotation according to Raimondi and coronal correction was not sig. affected (72 (± 12) % in the SI-Group versus 68 (± 15) % in the DI-Group), even when flexibility was respected (Cincinnati Correction Index CCI was 2.9 (± 4.9) versus 3.5 (± 4.4). (p < 0.01). The gain of kyphosis was sig greater (2.7°) in the SI-group, but not clinical relevant. CONCLUSION: The use of DI screws for apical derotation did not provide an advantage for coronal correction or derotation in thoracic curves. Presumably after translation is performed in the DI-group, there was too much tension and friction in the construct impeding further derotation. Simultaneous translation and derotation in the SI-group, with the convex rod being the COR, yielded similar correction with better kyphosis and was faster and more economic.