Comparison of techniques between concave distraction or convex resection in the treatment of congenital cervicothoracic scoliosis / 中华骨科杂志

ABSTRACT

Objective:To compare the technique between concave distraction and convex resection in the treatment of congenital cervicothoracic scoliosis and evaluate its curative effect.Methods:Data of congenital cervicothoracic scoliosis patients from January 2010 to January 2020 were collected, among which 5 were males and 3 were females. The patients' age was 12.5±4.5 years old (range 6-20 years old). One case had C 7 wedged vertebra, 4 cases had T 1 hemivertebra and unbalanced vertebra, 2 cases had T 2 hemivertebra and 1 case had fused facet joint and wedged lamina in T 1. All patients had different degrees of vertebra fusion. Convex resection technique (one stage anterior and posterior combined hemivertebrae resection and annular osteotomy) was used to treat 4 cases before 2015; Concave distraction technique (A combination of anterior and posterior release, intervertebral space and facet space distraction, cage placed and fusion) was used to treat 4 cases after 2015 and 2 of them had 2 segments distraction. Perioperative neurological, vascular and wound related complications were recorded. The main parameters were structure Cobb angle, cephalic and caudal compensatory Cobb angle, mandibular incline, neck tilt, shoulder balance and head shift were measured pre-operation, post-operation and at the last follow-up. Results:All patients' surgeries were completed successfully. In convex resection group, the duration of surgery was 201±100 min (range 113-300 min) per vertebra, the estimated blood loss was 294±153 ml (range 100-450 ml) per vertebra, the hospital stay was 14±3 d (range 11-18 d) and follow up time was 51±11 months (range 36-60 months). In concave distraction group, the duration of surgery was 117±14 min (range 101-129 min) per vertebra, the estimated blood loss was 119±36 ml (range 85-167 ml) per vertebra, hospital stay was 17±3 d (range 14-20 d) and follow up time was 28±21 months (range 12-60 months). Convex resection group had longer operation time and more blood loss per vertebra than concave distraction group. In convex resection group, structural Cobb angle was 45.1°±21.0° pre-operation and 22.7°±15.3° post-operation, which was corrected significantly ( Z=6.53, P=0.038). The correction rate was 54.8%±30.9%. Cephalic compensatory Cobb angle was 22.1°±8.2° pre-operation and 8.2°±5.8° post-operation, which was corrected significantly ( F=6.01, P=0.049). The correction rate was 66.8%±15.1%. Mandible incline was 7.8°±3.1° pre-operation and 3.5°±1.5° post-operation, which was corrected significantly ( F=8.02, P=0.018). The correction rate was 51.0%±29.7%. In concave distraction group, structural Cobb angle was 32.2°±27.2° pre-operation and 16.3°±16.7° post-operation, which was corrected significantly ( F=7.43, P=0.024) . The correction rate was 59.0%±24.7%. Caudal compensatory Cobb angle was 18.9°(17.2°, 32.1°) pre-operation and 9.5°±10.3° post-operation, which was corrected significantly ( Z=6.00, P=0.049). The correction rate was 64.0%±24.1%. Clavicle angle was 3.9°±2.3° pre-operation and 0.3°±0.4° post-operation, which was corrected significantly ( F=1.75, P=0.040). The correction rate was 97.0% (48.5%, 99.8%). There was no significant difference in the correction rate of all radiographic parameters between the two groups. At the last follow-up, the patients' appearance of head, neck and shoulder were improved compared with those before surgery. In convex resection group, 2 patients showed nerve root stimulation symptoms postoperatively on convex side. One patient developed C 5 nerve root palsy which weakened deltoid muscle and the other patients presented with reduced triceps muscle strength. In concave distraction group, one patient developed C 5 nerve root palsy on convex side. All these symptoms recovered by conservative treatment 3 months after operation. Conclusion:It is safe and effective to treat congenital cervicothoracic scoliosis with convex resection technique and concave distraction technique. The concave distraction technique has the advantages of more safety, less operating time, less blood loss and easier to perform and has a wider application prospect.