Correction objectives have higher impact than screw pattern and density on the optimal 3D correction of thoracic AIS: a biomechanical study

Surgical outcomes of severe spinal deformities exceeding 100° or treated by vertebral column resection (VCR). Does implant density matter?: an observational study of deformity groupings

STUDY DESIGN

Prospective multicenter international observational study.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the effect of implant density on clinical outcomes in complex pediatric spine reconstruction. Implant density in spine deformity surgery has been a subject of much debate with some authors advocating higher density for better correction. Few studies have looked at the effect of implant density on severe curves > 100 deg or treated with vertebral column resection (VCR).

METHODS

250/311 pts with 2-year f/u enrolled in the FOX pediatric database from 17 international sites were queried for the impact of implant density and surgical outcomes. Patients were grouped into three implant density categories for comparative analysis Group 1 (density ≤ 1), Group 2 (1 < density < 1.5) and Group 3 (density; 1.5-2).

RESULTS

250 pts: 47 (Grp1)/99 (Grp2) /104 (Grp3); Pre-op age and etiology and curve types were similar in all groups, but body mass index (BMI) was higher in Grp3. Grps 1 and 2 had significantly higher sagittal deformity angular ratio (S-DAR) compared to Grp 3 (p < 0.001). Pre-op Halo Gravity Traction (HGT) was used in 55.3%/44.4%/31.7%, p = 0.017; Grp1/Grp2/Grp3, respectively. Average duration of surgery (min) was higher in Grp3 relative to Grp1 only: 352.5/456.5/515.0, p = 0.0029. Blood loss was similar in all Grps. Rate of VCR, PSO and SPO was similar in all Grps. Pre-op Coronal Cobb avg 96.1/83.6/88.6, p = 0.2342, attained similar correction after HGT (24.6%/27.2%/23.2%, p = 0.4864. Coronal Cobb corrections at 2-year follow-up (FU) were (37.1%/40.3%/53.5%, p = 0.0004). Pre-op sagittal Cobb was (105.4/101.9/75.9, p < 0.01.), achieved similar %correction in HGT (19.1%/22.3%/22.5%, p = 0.6851) and at 2-year FU (39.6%/41.4%/29.8%, p = 0.1916). After adjusting for C-DAR, S-DAR, pre-op coronal and sagittal Cobb, etiology, curve types, age, BMI and number of rods in multivariate analysis, the odds of developing post-operative implant complication was 11 times greater in group 1 compared to group 3 (OR = 11.17,95% CI 2.34-53.32). There was significant improvement in SRS scores in all Grps at 2-year FU.

CONCLUSION

Although higher implant density was observed to be associated with greater curve correction and lower rates of post-operative implant-related complication and revision in heterogeneous case groups, the results may not imply causality of implant density on the outcomes in severe pediatric spine reconstruction.

How do spine instrumentation parameters influence the 3D correction of thoracic adolescent idiopathic scoliosis? A patient-specific biomechanical study

BACKGROUND

Patient-specific models promises to support the surgical decision-making process, particularly in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. The present computational biomechanical study investigates how specific instrumentation parameters impact 3D deformity correction in thoracic scoliosis.

METHODS

1080 instrumentation simulations of a representative patient were run. The independent instrumentation parameters were: screw pattern, upper and lower instrumented vertebrae, rod curvature and rod stiffness. ANOVA and correlation analyses analyzed how the instrumentation parameters influenced the 3D correction.

FINDINGS

Coronal plane correction was affected by the lower instrumented vertebra and rod stiffness (explaining 84% and 11%, respectively, of its overall variance). The sagittal profile was controlled by rod curvature and the upper vertebra (56% and 36%). The transverse plane vertebral rotation was influenced by lower, upper instrumented vertebra and screw pattern (35%, 32% and 19%). The Cobb angle correction was strongly correlated with the number of fused vertebrae, particularly when grouped by the upper instrumented vertebra (r = -0.91) and rod stiffness (r = -0.73). Thoracic kyphosis was strongly correlated with the number of fused vertebrae grouped by rod curvature (r = 0.84). Apical vertebral rotation was moderately correlated with the number of fused vertebrae grouped by upper/lower instrumented vertebra (r = 0.55/0.58), although variations were minimal.

INTERPRETATION

Instrumenting the last vertebra touching the central sacral vertical line improves 3D correction. A trade-off between a more cranial vs. caudal upper instrumented vertebra, respectively beneficial for coronal/sagittal vs. transverse plane correction, is required. High rod stiffness, differential rod contouring, and screw pattern were effective for coronal correction, thoracic kyphosis, and axial vertebral derotation, respectively.