Operative differences for posterior spinal fusion after vertebral body tethering: Are we fusing more levels in the end?

Anterior Vertebral Body Tethering: A Review of the Available Evidence

Idiopathic scoliosis is a complex three-dimensional deformity of the spine with anterior overgrowth (hypokyphosis), coronal curvature, and axial rotation. Scoliosis treatment in the skeletally immature spine is therapeutically challenging because of growth and was commonly limited to observation, bracing treatment, or fusion. Fusion accomplishes powerful deformity correction at the expense of future growth and mobility of the involved segments, increasing the risk of adjacent segment degeneration and intervertebral disk disease later in life. Anterior vertebral body tethering is a motion-preserving technique that exploits the Hueter-Volkmann principle by applying compression at the anterior and convex aspects of the curve to stimulate differential vertebral growth for gradual deformity reduction without fusion. The appropriate timing, curve magnitude, tensioning, growth prediction, indications, and limitations of tethering are being refined as this technique becomes more prevalent. Early outcome studies show that growth modulation with vertebral body tethering is safe, can achieve good results, and preserve motion in select patients.

Results of posterior spinal fusion after failed anterior vertebral body tethering

PURPOSE

In patients with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) undergoing anterior vertebral tethering (AVBT), some will subsequently require posterior spinal fusion (PSF). Limited data exist on clinical and radiographic outcomes of fusion after tether failure.

METHODS

490 patients who underwent AVBT were retrospectively analyzed. Twenty patients (4.1%) subsequently underwent conversion to PSF. A control group of patients with primary PSF (no previous AVBT) was matched for comparison. Data were compared using paired t-tests and Fisher Exact Tests.

RESULTS

There was a significant increase in estimated blood loss (EBL) (p = 0.002), percent estimated blood volume (%EBV) (p = 0.013), operative time (p = 0.002), and increased amount of fluoroscopy (mGy) (p = 0.04) as well as number of levels fused (p = 0.02) in the AVBT conversion group compared to primary fusion. However, no difference was found in implant density (p = 0.37), blood transfusions (p = 0.11), or intraoperative neuromonitoring events (p > 0.99). Both groups attained similar thoracic and lumbar percent correction (major coronal curve angle) from pre-op to the latest follow-up (thoracic p = 0.507, lumbar p = 0.952).

CONCLUSION

A subset of patients with AVBT will require conversion to PSF. Although technically more challenging, revision surgery can be safely performed with similar clinical and radiographic outcomes to primary PSF.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3