Advertisement

Spine Surgery pp 211-220 | Cite as

Surgical Correction and Special Features in Traumatic and Congenital Kyphotic Deformities

  • Sleiman Haddad
  • Antonia Matamalas
  • Ferran PelliséEmail author
Chapter

Abstract

The term kyphosis is derived from Greek and is used to describe a “hump”. As the word implies, in spine, it is used for sagittal spinal curves with anterior concavity. The normal spine has 2 areas physiologically aligned in kyphosis: the thoracic spine and the sacrum. Pathological kyphosis can be found in any part of the spine and can be due to a variety of etiologies including congenital or developmental anomalies, trauma, infection, inflammatory diseases or degenerative disc disease among others. It therefore can affect any age group. In this chapter, we will be presenting a clinical case of each etiology and discuss the rationale for treatment of kyphotic deformity in these scenarios. We will be reviewing the various surgical techniques available for each case, guide the reader through the decision making and discuss other relevant considerations.

References

  1. 1.
    Pellise F, Vila-Casademunt A, European Spine Study G. Posterior thoracic osteotomies. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol: Orthop Traumatol. 2014;24(Suppl 1):S39–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Zeller RD, Ghanem I, Dubousset J. The congenital dislocated spine. Spine. 1996;21(10):1235–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Winter RB, Moe JH, Wang JF. Congenital kyphosis. Its natural history and treatment as observed in a study of one hundred and thirty patients. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1973;55(2):223–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Barrey C, Roussouly P, Le Huec JC, D’Acunzi G, Perrin G. Compensatory mechanisms contributing to keep the sagittal balance of the spine. Eur Spine J. 2013;22(Suppl 6):S834–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Obeid I, Boissiere L, Yilgor C, Larrieu D, Pellise F, Alanay A, et al. Global tilt: a single parameter incorporating spinal and pelvic sagittal parameters and least affected by patient positioning. Eur Spine J. 2016;25(11):3644–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bridwell KH. Decision making regarding Smith-Petersen vs. pedicle subtraction osteotomy vs. vertebral column resection for spinal deformity. Spine. 2006;31(19 Suppl):S171–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Winter RBMJ, Lonstein JE. A review of family histories in patients with congenital spinal deformities. Orthop Trans. 1983;7:32.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Papadopoulos EC, Boachie-Adjei O, Hess WF, Sanchez Perez-Grueso FJ, Pellise F, Gupta M, et al. Early outcomes and complications of posterior vertebral column resection. Spine J. 2015;15(5):983–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Saifi C, Laratta JL, Petridis P, Shillingford JN, Lehman RA, Lenke LG. Vertebral column resection for rigid spinal deformity. Glob Spine J. 2017;7(3):280–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sleiman Haddad
    • 1
  • Antonia Matamalas
    • 1
  • Ferran Pellisé
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Spine UnitUniversity Hospital Vall d’HebronBarcelonaSpain

Personalised recommendations