Comparison of radiological changes after Halo-pelvic traction with posterior spinal osteotomy versus simple posterior spinal osteotomy for severe rigid spinal deformity
10.7507/1002-1892.201911153
- Author:
Beiping OUYANG
1
Author Information
1. Department of Spine Surgery, Guizhou Provincial Orthopedics Hospital, Guiyang Guizhou
- Publication Type:Journal Article
- Keywords:
Halo-pelvic traction;
posterior osteotomy;
Severe rigid spinal deformity
- From:
Chinese Journal of Reparative and Reconstructive Surgery
2020;34(7):900-906
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective: To compare the changes of scoliosis and kyphosis angles after Halo-pelvic traction with posterior spinal osteotomy versus simple posterior spinal osteotomy for severe rigid spinal deformity. Methods: A clinical data of 28 patients with severe rigid spinal deformity between January 2015 and November 2017 was retrospectively analyzed. Sixteen patients were treated by Halo-pelvic traction with posterior spinal osteotomy (group A) and 12 patients were treated with posterior spinal osteotomy only (group B). There was no significant difference between the two groups ( P>0.05) in gender, age, body mass index, and preoperative pulmonary function, coronal and sagittal Cobb angles, and flexibility. The operation time, intraoperative blood loss, and complications were recorded. The coronal and sagittal Cobb angles were measured on X-ray films before operation (before traction in group A), at 10 days after operation, at last follow-up in the two groups and after traction in group A. The improvement rate of deformity after traction in group A, the correction rate of deformity after operation, and the loss rate of correction at last follow-up were calculated. Results: All patients were followed up 24-30 months (mean, 26.5 months). The operation time and intraoperative blood loss were significantly less in group A than in group B ( t=7.629, P=0.000; t=8.773, P=0.000). In group A, 1 patient occurred transient numbness of both legs during continuous traction and 2 patients needed ventilator support for more than 12 hours. In group B, 7 patients needed ventilator support for more than 12 hours, including 1 patient with deep incision infection. The incidence of complications was 18.75% (3/16) in group A and 58.33% (7/12) in group B, and the difference between the two groups was significant ( χ2=4.680, P=0.031). The coronal and sagittal improvement rates of deformity after traction in group A were 40.47%±3.60% and 40.70%±4.20%, respectively. There was no significant difference between the two groups ( P>0.05) in the coronal and sagittal Cobb angles at 10 days after operation and at last follow-up, in the correction rate of deformity after operation, and in the loss rate of correction at last follow-up. Conclusion: For the severe rigid spinal deformity, Halo-pelvic traction with posterior spinal osteotomy and simple posterior spinal osteotomy can obtain the same orthopedic effect and postoperative deformity correction. However, the Halo-pelvic traction can shorten operation time, reduce blood loss and incidence of perioperative complications.
