Hybrid constructs pedicle screw with apical sublaminar bands versus pedicle screws only for surgical correction of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis
To compare the 2-year minimum postoperative results of posterior correction and spinal arthrodesis using translational correction with hybrid (sublaminar bands on concave side and pedicle screw) constructs versus correction with intermediate density pedicle screw-only constructs in the treatment of AIS (Lenke 1).
A total of 37 patients with AIS at single institutions who underwent posterior spinal arthrodesis pedicle screw with sublaminar bands at the apex (19 patients) (Group A) or pedicle screw-only (18) constructs (Group B) were selected and matched according to similar age at surgery 13.8 years (Group A) and 14.3 years (Group B), similar arthrodesis area 12.3 (Group A) and 11.5 (Group B), all curves Lenke type 1 with similar pre-op curve 54° (Group A) and 57° (Group B). Patients were evaluated pre-op, immediately post-op, and at min 2-year follow-up according to radiographic curve correction, operating time, intraoperative blood loss, and f.u. loss of correction.
The average curve correction was 65.6% in sublaminar group and 68% in pedicle screw group. At 2-year follow-up, loss of the major curve correction was 2% in sublaminar group compared to 3% in pedicle screw group. Postoperative coronal and sagittal balance was similar in both groups. Operating time averaged 200 min (Group A) and 180 min (Group B). Intraoperative blood loss was significantly different in both groups 700 ± 160 cc in sublaminar group and 630 ± 150 cc in pedicle screw group. There were no neurologic complications in both groups.
The two groups offer similar curve correction without neurologic complications in the surgical treatment of AIS (Lenke 1). The use of sublaminar bands on the apex (concave side) can be a valid fixation in the presence of hypoplastic pedicle, can reduce the thoracic hypokyphosis and derotate the vertebra but had more blood loss comparing to pedicle screws alone.
KeywordsAdolescent idiopathic scoliosis Surgical correction Sublaminar bands Pedicle screw
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
All authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
- 1.Asher MA (1997) Isola spinal instrumentation system for scoliosis. In: Bridwell KH, DeWald RL (eds) The textbook of spinal surgery. Lippincott-Raven, Philadelphia, pp 596–606Google Scholar
- 3.Cheng I, Kim Y, Gupta MC, Bridwell KH, Hurford RK, Lee SS, Theerajunyaporn T, Lenke LG (2005) Apical sublaminar wires versus pedicle screws—which provides better results for surgical correction of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis? Spine 30. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.brs.0000179261.70845.b7 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 5.Dobbs MB, Lenke LG, Kim YJ, Kamath G, Peelle MW, Bridwell KH (2006) Selective posterior thoracic fusions for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: comparison of hooks versus pedicle screws. Spine 31. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.brs.0000240212.31241.8e CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 7.Kim YJ, Lenke LG, Bridwell KH, Kim J, Cho SK, Cheh G, Yoon J (2007) Proximal junctional kyphosis in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis after 3 different types of posterior segmental spinal instrumentation and fusions: incidence and risk factor analysis of 410 cases. Spine 32. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e318074c3ce CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 8.Kim YJ, Lenke LG, Cho SK, Bridwell KH, Sides B, Blanke K (2004) Comparative analysis of pedicle screw versus hook instrumentation in posterior spinal fusion of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Spine 29:2040–2048. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.brs.0000138268.12324.1a CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 9.Kim YJ, Lenke LG, Kim J, Bridwell KH, Cho SK, Cheh G, Sides B (2006) Comparative analysis of pedicle screw versus hybrid instrumentation in posterior spinal fusion of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Spine 31:291–298. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.brs.0000197865.20803.d4 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 10.Lee SM, Suk SI, Chung ER (2004) Direct vertebral rotation: a new technique of three-dimensional deformity correction with segmental pedicle screw fixation in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Spine 29:343–349. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.BRS.0000109991.88149.19 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 12.Lowenstein JE, Matsumoto H, Vitale MG, Weidenbaum M, Gomez JA, Lee FY, Hyman JE, Roye DP (2007) Coronal and sagittal plane correction in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: a comparison between all pedicle screw versus hybrid thoracic hook lumbar screw constructs. Spine 32:448–452. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.brs.0000255030.78293.fd CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 13.Luque ER (1982) Segmental spinal instrumentation for correction of scoliosis. Clin Orthop Relat Res 163:192–198Google Scholar
- 15.Perdriolle R (1979) La scoliose. Son étude tridimensionnelle. Maloine, ParisGoogle Scholar
- 16.Perisinakis K, Theocharopoulos N, Damilakis J, Katonis P, Papadokostakis G, Hadjipavlou A, Gourtsoyiannis N (2004) Estimation of patient dose and associated radiogenic risks from fluoroscopically guided pedicle screw insertion. Spine 29:1555–1560. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.BRS.0000131214.57597.21 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 17.Remes V, Helenius I, Schlenzka D, Yrjonen T, Ylikoski M, Poussa M (2004) Cotrel–Dubousset (CD) or Universal Spine System (USS) instrumentation in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS): comparison of midterm clinical, functional, and radiologic outcomes. Spine 29:2024–2030. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.brs.0000138408.64907.dc CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 20.Takahata M, Ito M, Abumi K, Kotani Y, Sudo H, Ohshima S, Minami A (2007) Comparison of novel ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene tape versus conventional metal wire for sublaminar segmental fixation in the treatment of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. J Spinal Disord Tech 20:449–455. https://doi.org/10.1097/BSD.0b013e318030d30e CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 23.Vora V, Crawford A, Babekhir N, Boachie-Adjei O, Lenke L, Peskin M, Charles G, Kim Y (2007) A pedicle screw construct gives an enhanced posterior correction of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis when compared with other constructs: myth or reality. Spine 32:1869–1874. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e318108b912 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar