Treatment of Idiopathic Scoliosis With Vertebral Body Stapling

Innovative technologies in thoracolumbar and lumbar spine surgery failing to reach standard of care: state-of-art review

PURPOSE

To evaluate previously popular technologies in the field of spine surgery, and to better understand their advantages and limitations to the current standards of care. Spine surgery is an ever-evolving field that serves to resolve various spinal pathologies in patients of all ages. While there are established treatments for various conditions, such as lumbar spinal stenosis, idiopathic scoliosis, and degenerative lumbar disease, there is always further research and development in these areas to produce innovative technologies that can lead to better outcomes. As this process progresses, we must remind ourselves of previously tried and tested inventions and their outcomes that have fallen short of becoming a standard to ensure we are able to learn lessons from the past.

METHODS

A thorough literature review was conducted with the aim of compiling literature of previously utilized technologies in spine surgery. Biomedical databases were utilized to gather relevant articles including PubMed, MEDLINE, and EMBASE. Emphasis was placed on gathering articles with technologies or therapeutics aimed at treating common spinal pathologies including lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS), adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS), and other degenerative lumbar spine diseases. The keywords used were: "failed technologies", "historical technologies", "spine surgery", "spinal stenosis", "adolescent idiopathic scoliosis", and "degenerative lumbar spine disease". A total of 47 articles were gathered after initial review.

RESULTS

Different technologies pertaining to spine surgery were identified and critically evaluated. Some of these technologies included X-STOP, Vertiflex, Vertebral Body Stapling, and Dynesys. These technologies were evaluated for their strengths and limitations across their spinal pathology applications. While each type of technology had their benefits, the data tended to be mixed with various limitations across studies.

CONCLUSION

These technologies have been trialed in the field of spine surgery across various spinal pathologies, but still prove of limited efficacy and shortcomings to the current standards of care.

Vertebral growth modulation by posterior dynamic deformity correction device in skeletally immature patients with moderate adolescent idiopathic scoliosis

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective, comparative, multicenter.

INTRODUCTION

Growth modulating spinal implants are used in the management of scoliosis such as anterior vertebral body tethering. A motion-sparing posterior device (PDDC) was recently approved for the treatment of moderate AIS. The purpose of this study was to determine if the PDDC can modulate growth in skeletally immature patients with AIS.

METHODS

From a database of patients treated with the PDDC over 4 years, we identified those who had a minimum of 2 years follow-up. Pre-operative and post-operative Cobb angles and coronal plane wedging of the apical vertebra were evaluated on standing full length radiographs. Independent sample t test and one-way ANOVA with post-hoc Tukey HSD analysis was used to compare three groups in varying skeletal maturity: Risser 0-1, Risser 2-3, and Risser 4-5.

RESULTS

45 patients (14.2-years old, 11-17) were evaluated with a mean pre-op curve of 46° (35°-66°). The average preoperative major curve magnitude, of either Lenke 1 or 5 curve type, was similar among the three groups 47.6°, 46° and 41.5°. Deformity correction was similar in the three groups, with reduction to 26.4°, 20.4° and 26.2°, respectively, at final follow-up [p < 0.05]. Pre-op wedging 7.4° (3.8°-15°) was reduced after surgery to 5.7° (1°-15°) (p < 0.05). Of those patients, Risser 0-1 (n = 16) had preoperative wedging of 9.5° (6°-14.5°) that was reduced to 5.4° (1°-8°) postoperatively (p < 0.05); Risser 2-3 (n = 15) had pre-op 7.7° (4°-15°) vs. post-op 7.0° (3°-15°); Risser 4-5 (n = 14) had pre-op 4.8° (3.8°-6.5°) vs. post-op 4.7° (3.7°-6.5°). Delta Wedging in Risser 0-1 stage was significantly different than for Risser 2-3 and for Risser 4-5.

CONCLUSION

The posterior dynamic deformity correction device was able to modulate vertebral body wedging in skeletally immature patients with AIS. This was most evident in patients who were Risser 0-1. In contrast, curve correction was similar among the three groups. This finding lends support to the device's ability to modulate growth.