Posterior extrapleural intervertebral space release combined with wedge osteotomy for the treatment of severe rigid scoliosis

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.

Posterior Multisegment Apical Convex plus Concave Intervertebral Release Combined with Posterior Column Osteotomy for the Treatment of Rigid Thoracic/Thoracolumbar Scoliosis

BACKGROUND

Intervertebral release (IVR) in the apical region is critical for full release of a rigid spine. Previous studies have mainly reported IVR techniques using an anterior approach or posterior apical convex IVR. We first report the surgical procedure of posterior multisegment apical convex plus concave IVR combined with posterior column osteotomy (PCO) for treating rigid thoracic/thoracolumbar scoliosis.

METHODS

This study retrospectively analyzed clinical, radiologic outcomes and technique notes of 18 patients with rigid scoliosis treated with posterior multisegment convex plus concave IVR combined with PCO.

RESULTS

The preoperative, postoperative, and final follow-up mean sagittal Cobb angles of the main curve were 75.2° (58.7°-110.2°), 18.4° (9°-35.1°), and 19.0° (8.2°-36.3°), respectively. The mean correction rate was 75.3% (66.7%-86.7%). In cases of thoracolumbar kyphosis, the preoperative, postoperative, and final follow-up mean sagittal Cobb angles were 45.7° (40.5°-52.6°), 18.8° (10.2°-27.5°), and 19.8° (11.1°-29°), respectively. The mean correction rate was 57% (42.1%-72.6%). The mean axial vertebral rotation (AVR) in the IVR region was 24.4° (14.3°-46.3°) preoperatively and was corrected to 10.9° (10.9°-26.6°) postoperatively. The mean correction rate for AVR was 55.9% (41.1%-78.6%). The coronal and sagittal Cobb angles and AVR postoperatively were significantly lower than those preoperatively (P < 0.001). This case series reported 2 cases of pleural effusion and 1 case of wound infection.

CONCLUSIONS

Single posterior multilevel apical convex plus concave IVR combined with PCO is a safe and effective surgical method for treating rigid thoracic/thoracolumbar scoliosis that does not need 3-column osteotomy.

CORRECTION OF SEVERE STIFF SCOLIOSIS THROUGH EXTRAPLEURAL INTERBODY RELEASE AND OSTEOTOMY (LIEPO)

ABSTRACT Objective: To report a new technique for extrapleural interbody release with transcorporal osteotomy of the inferior vertebral plateau (LIEPO) and to evaluate the correction potential of this technique and its complications. Method: We included patients with scoliosis with Cobb angle greater than 90° and flexibility less than 25% submitted to surgical treatment between 2012 and 2016 by the technique LIEPO at the National Institute of Traumatology and Orthopedics (INTO). Sagittal and coronal alignment, and the translation of the apical vertebra were measured and the degree of correction of the deformity was calculated through the pre and postoperative radiographs, and the complications were described. Results: Patients had an average bleed of 1,525 ml, 8.8 hours of surgical time, 123° of scoliosis in the preoperative period, and a mean correction of 66%. There was no case of permanent neurological damage and no surgical revision. Conclusion: The LIEPO technique proved to be effective and safe in the treatment of severe stiff scoliosis, reaching a correction potential close to the PEISR (Posterior extrapleural intervertebral space release) technique and superior to that of the pVCR (posterior Vertebral Column Resection) with no presence of infection and permanent neurological deficit. New studies are needed to validate this promising technique.

Radiologic comparison of posterior release, internal distraction, final PSO and spinal fusion with one-stage posterior vertebral column resection for multi-level severe congenital scoliosis

Background

To compare radiologic results of posterior release, internal distraction, and final pedicle subtraction osteotomy (PSO) and spinal fusionwith one-stage posterior vertebral column resection (PVCR) in treating multi-level severe congenital scoliosis.

Methods

Forty-onesevere congenital scoliosis patients were used in the study. Group A comprised 24 patients who underwent one-stage PVCR. Group B comprised 17 patients who underwent posterior release with internal distraction, followed by final posterior fusion and instrumentation. The average preoperative main curve was 110.4° (95–130°) in group A and 109.4° (range 90°–126°) in group B. Postoperative follow-up time was ≥2 years (2.0–4.5 years) to analyze the radiographic and clinical outcomes.

Results

A comparison of posterior release, internal distraction, and final spinal fusion with PVCR showed no significant differences in postoperative main curve and compensatory caudal curve correction, coronal and sagittal imbalance. However, significant differences were found between the 2 groups in compensatory cranial curve correction.

Conclusions

Posterior release, internal distraction, and final spinal fusion produce better corrective results in compensatory cranial curve correction than PVCR in treating severe multi-level congenital scoliosis.

Management of severe and rigid idiopathic scoliosis

Frequently, severe idiopathic scoliosis patients are first seen in a spine centre after years of deformity evolution, presenting with large curves, severe rib hump, shoulder and trunk imbalance and cardiorespiratory complications related to neglected scoliosis. Severe rigid idiopathic scoliosis has <25% of correction on bending films and major curve over 90°. Adequate mobilization of this type of deformity is necessary to achieve maximal correction, often requiring more extensive surgical intervention, with care taken to avoid clinical and neurological complications. Halo traction, internal temporary distraction, releases, osteotomies and apical vertebral resection are often used in combination to achieve optimal results. Indications must be tailored by surgeons considering resources, deformity characteristics and patient's profile. Vertebral resection procedures may have potential neurological and clinical risks and should be one of the last treatment options performed by experienced surgical team. Neuromonitoring is essential during these procedures.

The impact of posterior temporary internal distraction on stepwise corrective surgery for extremely severe and rigid scoliosis greater than 130°

AIM

To investigate the efficacy and safety of temporary internal distraction corrective surgery for extremely severe scoliosis.

METHODS

Eleven scoliosis patients (3 males and 8 females) with curves ≥130° (mean 148.8°; range 130°-157°) who underwent a two-stage surgery, including a posterior temporary internal distraction correction and definitive posterior spinal correction with posterior pedicle screw instrumentation from 2008 to 2011 were retrospectively reviewed. Minimum follow-up was 2-years (mean 41.8 months; range 27.0-63.0 months). The analysis focused on the impact of temporary internal distraction on curve correction, pulmonary function tests (PFTs), complications and surgical outcomes. Neurosurveillance of sensory (somatosensory-evoked potentials) and motor (motor-evoked potentials) potential was performed in all cases. Posterior instrumentation was used in all patients.

RESULTS

After the use of internal distraction, the preoperative major curve (mean 148.8°; range 130°-157°) was corrected to a mean of 79° (range 63°-87°), the T5-T12 kyphosis Cobb angle (mean 79°; range 30°-97°) was corrected to a mean of 59° (range 20°-75°), the coronal imbalance (mean 0.8 cm; range -3.6 to 2.8 cm) was improved to a mean of 0.6 cm (range -1.5 to 2.0 cm), the forced vital capacity percentage (FVC%) was improved from 59.3 ± 11.6 to 68.7 ± 13.7, and the forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1%) was improved from 61.4 ± 13.6 to 71.3 ± 9.3. The average increase in body height was 6.7 cm, and the dorsum razor was corrected to 3-5 cm. During definitive surgery, the final major curves were corrected to a mean of 55° (range 32°-72°), the T5-T12 kyphosis Cobb was corrected to 35° (range 15°-68°), the coronal imbalance was improved to 0.5 cm (range -1.2 to 1.8 cm), the FVC% was improved to 71.2 ± 8.3, the FEV1% was improved to 76.3 ± 16.7, the increase in body height was 3.1 cm, and the dorsum razor was corrected to 1-3 cm. The mean interval time between the two surgeries was 3.5 months. None of the patients exhibited postoperative neurologic deficits or infections. No instrument complications were found during the final follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

Temporary internal distraction in a two-stage corrective surgery provided patients who had extremely severe and rigid scoliosis, an effective and safe solution for scoliosis without significant complications.

Comparison of anterior and posterior vertebral column resection versus anterior release with posterior internal distraction for severe and rigid scoliosis

PURPOSE

This study aimed to compare efficacy, safety, and cost between staged vertebral column resection (VCR) and anterior release with internal distraction in treating severe and rigid idiopathic scoliosis.

METHODS

We examined the records of 43 patients with severe and rigid idiopathic scoliosis treated in our hospital. Group A included 26 patients who underwent anterior VCR followed by posterior vertebral column resection and instrumentation from July 2007 to October 2009. Group B included 17 patients who underwent anterior release with temporary posterior internal distraction, followed by posterior fusion and instrumentation from November 2009 to June 2011. The average preoperative main curve for group A was 101.3° (range 90°-130°) and for group B was 104.8° (range 90°-136°). Minimum follow-up was 2 years. Radiographic and clinical outcomes were compared between the groups.

RESULTS

A t test demonstrated that the differences between the groups in preoperative and postoperative coronal and sagittal imbalance, thoracic kyphosis correction, and lumbar lordosis were not statistically significant. Patients in group B showed better postoperative (P = 0.031) and final (P = 0.030) main thoracic curve correction (76.8 and 75.6 %, respectively) than patients in group A (68.3 and 67.7 %, respectively). Patients in group B had better thoracolumbar or lumbar curve correction (85.8 %) than those in group A (76.8 %; P = 0.048). The differences in blood loss and operation time were not statistically significant (P = 0.094 and P = 0.060, respectively). Hospital stay was longer (P = 0.001) and patient cost was higher (P < 0.001) for patients in group B. One patient in group A required ventilator support for 12 h after anterior surgery. One transient dyspnea occurred in group B. No neurologic deficits occurred in either group.

CONCLUSION

Anterior release with posterior internal distraction produces better corrective effects than anterior and posterior VCR, though hospital stay and costs are greater.