Advertisement

Prospective 10-year follow-up assessment of spinal fusions for thoracic AIS: radiographic and clinical outcomes

  • Peter O. NewtonEmail author
  • Masayuki Ohashi
  • Tracey P. Bastrom
  • Carrie E. Bartley
  • Burt Yaszay
  • Michelle C. Marks
  • Randal Betz
  • Lawrence G. Lenke
  • David Clements
Case Series
  • 8 Downloads

Abstract

Study design

Prospective registry.

Summary of background data

The evolution of spinal instrumentation has provided better outcomes in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS); however, there is a paucity of reliable prospective information on 10-year post-operative outcomes of modern surgical techniques.

Methods

A prospective multicenter registry of patients who had surgical correction of AIS was reviewed. Patients with major thoracic scoliosis (Lenke types 1–4) operated on between 1997 and 2007, with 10-year post-operative follow-up data were included. Radiographic and clinical outcomes including Scoliosis Research Society (SRS)-22 scores and revision surgeries were evaluated.

Results

One hundred and seventy-four patients (mean 25.0 years of age at most recent evaluation) were included. Pedicle screw constructs were used in 102 patients (58%), hook or hybrid constructs in 22 (13%), and anterior screw-rod constructs in 50 (29%). The mean pre-operative thoracic Cobb angle was corrected from 53° to 18° initially. At 10-year follow-up, the mean thoracic curve was 22° (mean 57% correction), with 29 patients (16.7%) having loss of correction (LOC) ≥ 10°. There were a total of 14 revision surgeries performed in 13 patients (7.5%). SRS-22 pain (p = 0.035), self-image (p < 0.001), and total scores (p < 0.001) significantly improved at 2-year follow-up. The mean pain score at 10-year follow-up was similar to pre-operative scores and lower (more pain) than previously published mean scores of normal adults aged 20–40 years (p < 0.05).

Conclusions

Spinal fusion patients report SRS-22 quality of life 10 years after scoliosis surgery that is minimally reduced compared to healthy peers and substantially better than an un-operated cohort of comparably aged scoliosis patients. Adolescents with thoracic idiopathic scoliosis should expect little if any change in their health-related quality of life compared to before surgery, high satisfaction, and a 7.5% chance of revision surgery 10 years after their index spinal fusion.

Level of evidence

Therapeutic II.

Keywords

Adolescent idiopathic scoliosis Fusion Long-term outcomes Patient-reported outcomes 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This study was supported in part by grants to the Setting Scoliosis Straight Foundation from DePuy Synthes Spine, EOS imaging, K2M, Medtronic, NuVasive and Zimmer Biomet in support of Harms Study Group research. Harms Study Group Investigators Aaron Buckland, MD: New York University; Amer Samdani, MD: Shriners Hospitals for Children—Philadelphia; Amit Jain, MD: Johns Hopkins Hospital; Baron Lonner, MD: Mount Sinai Hospital; Benjamin Roye, MD: Columbia University; Burt Yaszay, MD: Rady Children’s Hospital; Chris Reilly, MD: BC Children’s Hospital; Daniel Hedequist, MD: Boston Children’s Hospital; Daniel Sucato, MD: Texas Scottish Rite Hospital; David Clements, MD: Cooper Bone & Joint Institute New Jersey; Firoz Miyanji, MD: BC Children’s Hospital; Harry Shufflebarger, MD: Nicklaus Children’s Hospital; Jack Flynn, MD: Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia; Jahangir Asghar, MD: Cantor Spine Institute; Jean Marc Mac Thiong, MD: CHU Sainte-Justine; Joshua Pahys, MD: Shriners Hospitals for Children—Philadelphia; Juergen Harms, MD: Klinikum Karlsbad-Langensteinbach, Karlsbad; Keith Bachmann, MD: University of Virginia; Larry Lenke, MD: Columbia University; Mark Abel, MD: University of Virginia; Michael Glotzbecker, MD: Boston Children’s Hospital; Michael Kelly, MD: Washington University; Michael Vitale, MD: Columbia University; Michelle Marks, PT, MA: Setting Scoliosis Straight Foundation; Munish Gupta, MD: Washington University; Nicholas Fletcher, MD: Emory University; Patrick Cahill, MD: Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia; Paul Sponseller, MD: Johns Hopkins Hospital; Peter Gabos, MD: Nemours/Alfred I. duPont Hospital for Children; Peter Newton, MD: Rady Children’s Hospital; Peter Sturm, MD: Cincinnati Children’s Hospital; Randal Betz, MD: Institute for Spine & Scoliosiscba; Ron Lehman, MD: Columbia University; Stefan Parent, MD: CHU Sainte-Justine; Stephen George, MD: Nicklaus Children’s Hospital; Steven Hwang, MD: Shriners Hospitals for Children—Philadelphia; Suken Shah, MD: Nemours/Alfred I. duPont Hospital for Children; Tom Errico, MD: Nicklaus Children’s Hospital; Vidyadhar Upasani, MD: Rady Children’s Hospital.

Author contributions

PON, MO, TPB, CEB, BY, MCM, RB, LGL and DC: conception or design of the work; or acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work; drafting or critically revising the work; final approval of the version to be published

Compliance with ethical standards

Ethical standards

IRB approval was obtained for this study.

References

  1. 1.
    Cotrel Y (1984) A new technic for segmental spinal osteosynthesis using the posterior approach. Dubousset J. Rev Chir Orthop Reparatrice Appar Mot 70:489–494PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cotrel Y, Dubousset J, Guillaumat M (1988) New universal instrumentation in spinal surgery. Clin Orthop Relat Res 227:10–23PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dobbs MB, Lenke LG, Kim YJ et al (2006) Selective posterior thoracic fusions for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: comparison of hooks versus pedicle screws. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 31:2400–2404Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hitchon PW, Brenton MD, Black AG et al (2003) In vitro biomechanical comparison of pedicle screws, sublaminar hooks, and sublaminar cables. J Neurosurg 99:104–109PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kim YJ, Lenke LG, Cho SK et al (2004) Comparative analysis of pedicle screw versus hook instrumentation in posterior spinal fusion of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 29:2040–2048Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Suk SI, Lee CK, Kim WJ et al (1995) Segmental pedicle screw fixation in the treatment of thoracic idiopathic scoliosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 20:1399–1405Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Betz RR, Harms J, Clements DH 3rd et al (1999) Comparison of anterior and posterior instrumentation for correction of adolescent thoracic idiopathic scoliosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 24:225–239Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kaneda K, Shono Y, Satoh S et al (1997) Anterior correction of thoracic scoliosis with Kaneda anterior spinal system. A preliminary report. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 22:1358–1368Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Liljenqvist UR, Bullmann V, Schulte TL et al (2006) Anterior dual rod instrumentation in idiopathic thoracic scoliosis. Eur Spine J 15:1118–1127PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Sweet FA, Lenke LG, Bridwell KH et al (2001) Prospective radiographic and clinical outcomes and complications of single solid rod instrumented anterior spinal fusion in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 26:1956–1965Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lenke LG (2003) Anterior endoscopic discectomy and fusion for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 28:S36–S43Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Newton PO, Wenger DR, Mubarak SJ et al (1997) Anterior release and fusion in pediatric spinal deformity. A comparison of early outcome and cost of thoracoscopic and open thoracotomy approaches. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 22:1398–1406Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Regan JJ, Mack MJ, Picetti GD 3rd (1995) A technical report on video-assisted thoracoscopy in thoracic spinal surgery. Preliminary description. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 20:831–837Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Wong HK, Hee HT, Yu Z et al (2004) Results of thoracoscopic instrumented fusion versus conventional posterior instrumented fusion in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis undergoing selective thoracic fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 29:2031–2038 (discussion 9) Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kishan S, Bastrom T, Betz RR et al (2007) Thoracoscopic scoliosis surgery affects pulmonary function less than thoracotomy at 2 years postsurgery. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 32:453–458Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lonner BS, Ren Y, Yaszay B et al (2018) Evolution of surgery for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis over 20 years: have outcomes improved? Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 43:402–410Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lykissas MG, Jain VV, Nathan ST et al (2013) Mid- to long-term outcomes in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis after instrumented posterior spinal fusion: a meta-analysis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 38:E113–E119Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Padhye K, Soroceanu A, Russell D et al (2018) Thoracoscopic anterior instrumentation and fusion as a treatment for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: a systematic review of the literature. Spine Deform 6:384–390PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Connolly PJ, Von Schroeder HP, Johnson GE et al (1995) Adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Long-term effect of instrumentation extending to the lumbar spine. J Bone Jt Surg Am 77:1210–1216Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Danielsson AJ, Nachemson AL (2001) Radiologic findings and curve progression 22 years after treatment for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: comparison of brace and surgical treatment with matching control group of straight individuals. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 26:516–525Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Enercan M, Kahraman S, Cobanoglu M et al (2015) Selective thoracic fusion provides similar health-related quality of life but can cause more lumbar disc and facet joint degeneration: a comparison of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis patients with normal population 10 years after surgery. Spine Deform 3:469–475PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Gotze C, Liljenqvist UR, Slomka A et al (2002) Quality of life and back pain: outcome 16.7 years after Harrington instrumentation. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 27:1456–1463 (discussion 63–64) Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Helenius I, Remes V, Yrjonen T et al (2003) Harrington and Cotrel–Dubousset instrumentation in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Long-term functional and radiographic outcomes. J Bone Jt Surg Am 85-A:2303–2309Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Larson AN, Fletcher ND, Daniel C et al (2012) Lumbar curve is stable after selective thoracic fusion for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: a 20-year follow-up. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 37:833–839Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Min K, Sdzuy C, Farshad M (2013) Posterior correction of thoracic adolescent idiopathic scoliosis with pedicle screw instrumentation: results of 48 patients with minimal 10-year follow-up. Eur Spine J 22:345–354PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Padua R, Padua S, Aulisa L et al (2001) Patient outcomes after Harrington instrumentation for idiopathic scoliosis: a 15- to 28-year evaluation. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 26:1268–1273Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Perez-Grueso FS, Fernandez-Baillo N, Arauz de Robles S et al (2000) The low lumbar spine below Cotrel–Dubousset instrumentation: long-term findings. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 25:2333–2341Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Sudo H, Ito M, Kaneda K et al (2013) Long-term outcomes of anterior spinal fusion for treating thoracic adolescent idiopathic scoliosis curves: average 15-year follow-up analysis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 38:819–826.  https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e31827ddc60 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Sudo HS, Mayer MM, Kaneda KK et al (2016) Maintenance of spontaneous lumbar curve correction following thoracic fusion of main thoracic curves in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Bone Jt J 98-B:997–1002Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Akazawa T, Kotani T, Sakuma T et al (2018) Modic changes and disc degeneration of nonfused segments 27 to 45 years after Harrington instrumentation for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: comparison to healthy controls. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 43:556–561Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Akazawa T, Minami S, Kotani T et al (2012) Long-term clinical outcomes of surgery for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis 21 to 41 years later. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 37:402–405Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Bartie BJ, Lonstein JE, Winter RB (2009) Long-term follow-up of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis patients who had Harrington instrumentation and fusion to the lower lumbar vertebrae: is low back pain a problem? Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 34:E873–E878Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Benli IT, Ates B, Akalin S et al (2007) Minimum 10 years follow-up surgical results of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis patients treated with TSRH instrumentation. Eur Spine J 16:381–391PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Helenius I, Remes V, Yrjonen T et al (2002) Comparison of long-term functional and radiologic outcomes after Harrington instrumentation and spondylodesis in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: a review of 78 patients. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 27:176–180Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Lavelle WF, Beltran AA, Carl AL et al (2016) Fifteen to twenty-five year functional outcomes of twenty-two patients treated with posterior Cotrel–Dubousset type instrumentation: a limited but detailed review of outcomes. Scoliosis Spinal Disord 11:18PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Mariconda M, Galasso O, Barca P et al (2005) Minimum 20-year follow-up results of Harrington rod fusion for idiopathic scoliosis. Eur Spine J 14:854–861PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Nohara A, Kawakami N, Seki K et al (2015) The effects of spinal fusion on lumbar disc degeneration in patients with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: a minimum 10-year follow-up. Spine Deform 3:462–468PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Ohashi M, Hirano T, Watanabe K et al (2018) Bone mineral density after spinal fusion surgery for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis at a minimum 20-year follow-up. Spine Deform 6:170–176PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Riouallon G, Odent T, Elie C et al (2016) Anterior screw-plate fixation in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: 15-year outcomes. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 102:227–232PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Scaramuzzo L, Giudici F, Bongetta D et al (2017) Thoraco-lumbar selective fusion in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis with Lenke C modifier curves: clinical and radiographic analysis at 10-year follow-up. Eur Spine J 26:514–523PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Newton PO, Marks MC, Bastrom TP et al (2013) Surgical treatment of Lenke 1 main thoracic idiopathic scoliosis: results of a prospective, multicenter study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 38:328–338Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Hayashi K, Upasani VV, Pawelek JB et al (2009) Three-dimensional analysis of thoracic apical sagittal alignment in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 34:792–797Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Newton PO, Fujimori T, Doan J et al (2015) Defining the “three-dimensional sagittal plane” in thoracic adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. J Bone Jt Surg Am 97:1694–1701Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Parvaresh KC, Osborn EJ, Reighard FG et al (2017) Predicting 3D thoracic kyphosis using traditional 2D radiographic measurements in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Spine Deform 5:159–165PubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Baldus C, Bridwell KH, Harrast J et al (2008) Age-gender matched comparison of SRS instrument scores between adult deformity and normal adults: are all SRS domains disease specific? Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 33:2214–2218Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Sponseller PD, Flynn JM, Newton PO et al (2012) The association of patient characteristics and spinal curve parameters with Lenke classification types. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 37:1138–1141Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    De la Garza RR, Goodwin CR, Abu-Bonsrah N et al (2016) Patient and operative factors associated with complications following adolescent idiopathic scoliosis surgery: an analysis of 36,335 patients from the Nationwide Inpatient Sample. J Neurosurg Pediatr 25:730–736Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Carreau JH, Bastrom T, Petcharaporn M et al (2014) Computer-generated, three-dimensional spine model from biplanar radiographs: a validity study in idiopathic scoliosis curves greater than 50 degrees. Spine Deform 2:81–88PubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Kuklo TR, Potter BK, Polly DW Jr et al (2005) Reliability analysis for manual adolescent idiopathic scoliosis measurements. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 30:444–454Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Newton PO, Faro FD, Gollogly S et al (2005) Results of preoperative pulmonary function testing of adolescents with idiopathic scoliosis. A study of six hundred and thirty-one patients. J Bone Jt Surg Am 87:1937–1946Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Yaszay B, Bastrom TP, Bartley CE et al (2017) The effects of the three-dimensional deformity of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis on pulmonary function. Eur Spine J 26:1658–1664PubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Newton PO, Yaszay B, Upasani VV et al (2010) Preservation of thoracic kyphosis is critical to maintain lumbar lordosis in the surgical treatment of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 35:1365–1370Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Cao Y, Xiong W, Li F (2014) Pedicle screw versus hybrid construct instrumentation in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: meta-analysis of thoracic kyphosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 39:E800–E810Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Pasha S, Ilharreborde B, Baldwin K (2018) Sagittal spinopelvic alignment after posterior spinal fusion in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 44(1):41–52Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Sarwahi V, Wendolowski S, Gecelter R et al (2018) When do patients return to physical activities and athletics after scoliosis surgery?: a validated patient questionnaire based study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 43:167–171Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Tarrant RC, O’Loughlin PF, Lynch S et al (2014) Timing and predictors of return to short-term functional activity in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis after posterior spinal fusion: a prospective study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 39:1471–1478Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Hwang SW, Samdani AF, Marks M et al (2013) Five-year clinical and radiographic outcomes using pedicle screw only constructs in the treatment of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Eur Spine J 22:1292–1299PubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Mariconda M, Andolfi C, Cerbasi S et al (2016) Effect of surgical correction of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis on the quality of life: a prospective study with a minimum 5-year follow-up. Eur Spine J 25:3331–3340PubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Daubs MD, Hung M, Neese A et al (2014) Scoliosis research society-22 results in 3052 healthy adolescents aged 10 to 19 years. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 39:826–832Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Wu W, Du Y, Liang J et al (2014) Score distribution of the scoliosis research society health-related quality of life in different subgroups of adolescent subjects unaffected by scoliosis in China. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 39:256–262Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Carreon LY, Sanders JO, Diab M et al (2010) The minimum clinically important difference in Scoliosis Research Society-22 Appearance, Activity, And Pain domains after surgical correction of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 35:2079–2083Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Scoliosis Research Society 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Peter O. Newton
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Masayuki Ohashi
    • 3
  • Tracey P. Bastrom
    • 1
  • Carrie E. Bartley
    • 1
  • Burt Yaszay
    • 1
    • 2
  • Michelle C. Marks
    • 4
  • Randal Betz
    • 5
  • Lawrence G. Lenke
    • 6
  • David Clements
    • 7
  1. 1.Orthopedics and Scoliosis DivisionRady Children’s HospitalSan DiegoUSA
  2. 2.Department of Orthopedic SurgeryUniversity of CaliforniaSan DiegoUSA
  3. 3.Department of Orthopedic SurgeryNiigata University Medical and Dental HospitalNiigataJapan
  4. 4.Setting Scoliosis Straight FoundationSan DiegoUSA
  5. 5.Institute for Spine and ScoliosisLawrencevilleUSA
  6. 6.Department of OrthopedicsColumbia UniversityNew YorkUSA
  7. 7.Cooper Bone & Joint InstituteCamdenUSA

Personalised recommendations