Long-term experience with simultaneous prone video-assisted thoracoscopic anterior spinal release and posterior spinal fusion in severe rigid pediatric spinal deformities

The Comparison of Posterior Intervertebral Release Combined with Posterior Column Osteotomy and Posterior Column Osteotomy Alone for the Treatment of Moderate-to-Severe Rigid Scoliosis: A Prospective Controlled Study

OBJECTIVES

There is no consensus on the treatment of moderate-to-severe rigid scoliosis. Anterior release and three-column osteotomy are excessively traumatic, whereas posterior column osteotomy (PCO) alone results in poor outcomes. An emerging surgical technique, posterior intervertebral release (PR), can release the rigid spine from the posterior approach. This study was performed to compare the multi-segment apical convex PR combined with PCO and PCO alone in patients with moderate-to-severe rigid scoliosis.

METHODS

From June 2021 to June 2022, this prospective study of moderate-to-severe (Cobb: 70-90°) rigid scoliosis (flexibility of main curve <25%) involved two groups defined by surgical procedure: the PR group, the patients undergoing PR combined with PCO; and the PCO group, the patients undergoing PCO alone. Follow-up was at least 12 months. Radiographic results mainly included main curve Cobb, correction of per PR/PCO segment, apical vertebra rotation (AVR) and apical vertebra translation (AVT). Demographics, surgical data, complications were also recorded. Student's independent samples t test and Pearson's chi-square test were used to compare the differences between groups.

RESULTS

Forty patients with an average age of 16.65 years were included (PR group, n = 20; PCO group, n = 20). The main curves averaged 77.56° ± 5.86° versus 78.02° ± 5.72° preoperatively and 20.07° ± 6.73° versus 33.58° ± 5.76° (p < 0.001) at the last follow-up in the PR and PCO groups, respectively. The mean correction rates were 74.30% and 56.84%, respectively (p < 0.001). The average coronal curve correction was 13.49° per release segment, which was significantly higher than the PCO correction of 6.20° (p < 0.001). The correction of apical vertebra rotation and translation in the main thoracic curve was significantly better in the PR group than in the PCO group (p < 0.05). Several minor complications in the two groups improved after conservative treatment.

CONCLUSION

The multi-segment apical convex PR combined with PCO offers more advantages than PCO alone in the treatment of patients with moderate-to-severe rigid scoliosis. Owing to its excellent corrective effect and few complications, this is a high benefit-risk ratio surgical strategy for rigid scoliosis.