The Performance of Graduation from Traditional Growing Rods with Apical Control Technique in Patients with Congenital Early-Onset Scoliosis
10.12376/j.issn.2097-0501.2023.04.010
- VernacularTitle:生长棒联合顶椎控制技术治疗先天性早发性脊柱侧凸的毕业疗效
- Author:
Zhiyi LI
1
,
2
;
Yiwei ZHAO
2
,
3
;
You DU
2
,
3
;
Chenkai LI
2
,
3
;
Haoran ZHANG
2
,
3
;
Guanfeng LIN
2
,
3
;
Yang YANG
2
,
3
;
Xiaohan YE
2
,
3
;
Shengru WANG
2
,
3
;
Jianguo ZHANG
2
,
3
,
4
Author Information
1. Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences &
2. Peking Union Medical College, Beijing 100730, China.
3. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Beijing Key Laboratory for Genetic Research of Skeletal Deformity, Key Laboratory of Big Data for Spinal Deformities, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences &
4. Peking Union Medical College, Beijing 100730, China.State Key Laboratory of Complex Severe and Rare Diseases, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences &
- Publication Type:Journal Article
- Keywords:
early-onset scoliosis;
traditional growth rods;
apical control technique;
hybrid technique;
graduation performance
- From:
JOURNAL OF RARE DISEASES
2023;2(4):529-538
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective Different from other etiologies of early-onset scoliosis (EOS), congenital early-onset scoliosis (CEOS) is mainly linked to vertebral anomalies, such as formation failures and segmentation failures at the apex segments. So far, there is little research on CEOS patients who have completed traditional growing rods (TGR) treatment, and the initial outcomes of TGR with or without apical control technique (ACT) are different. Therefore, we compared the "final" results of CEOS patients who completed TGR treatment with or without ACT. Methods We conducted a retrospective study of CEOS patients who completed TGR treatment from 2007—2020. They either had final fusion or were followed up after reaching skeletal maturity. We split the patients into two groups based on whether they had ACT with TGR or not. The ACT-TGR group had apical vertebrectomy/hemivertebrectomy with short fusion and TGR. The TGR-only group had only TGR. We looked at their demographic features, radiographic measurements, and complications. Results This study enrolled 46 CEOS patients, of which 13 patients were in the ACT-TGR group and 33 patients in the TGR group. The ACT-TGR group had a longer distraction interval (1.17 years vs. 0.75 years). The ACT-TGR group had a larger preoperative main curve [87.00(63.50, 98.00)], but the residual curve degrees were comparable between the two groups at the last follow-up (P=0.354). At the last follow-up, the T1-12 and T1-S1 heights were similar between the two groups. The ACT-TGR group had a lower number of implant-related complications per patient (0.77 vs. 1.48). Three patients in the ACT-TGR group underwent final fusion, while 17 patients in the TGR group underwent final fusion (P=0.060). Conclusions Both ACT-TGR and traditional TGR coud effectively correct deformity and preserve spinal growth in CEOS patients. ACT-TGR had a better corrective effect on patients with severe deformity and did not have a significant impact on spinal height. For patients with acceptable correction, spontaneous fusion and without implant failure, retaining the implant and continuing observation could be a strategy for graduating from growing rod treatment.
