Selection of the distal fusion level in posterior spinal fusion for Scheuermann kyphosis
10.3760/cma.j.cn121113-20210204-00119
- VernacularTitle:休门氏病后凸畸形后路矫形融合术中远端固定椎的选择策略
- Author:
Yanjie XU
1
;
Zongshan HU
;
Hongru MA
;
Zhikai QIAN
;
Kiram ABDUKAHAR·
;
Ziyang TANG
;
Chen LING
;
Weibiao LI
;
Zhen LIU
;
Zezhang ZHU
;
Yong QIU
Author Information
1. 南京大学医学院附属鼓楼医院脊柱外科 210008
- Keywords:
Scheuermann disease;
Spinal fusion;
Postoperative complications
- From:
Chinese Journal of Orthopaedics
2021;41(13):834-843
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective:To investigate the clinical outcomes and complication of posterior surgery for Scheuermann kyphosis fusing to different distal fusion levels.Methods:From January 2012 to December 2017, a consecutive cohort of 34 patients who were treated with posterior spinal instrumented correction and satisfied the inclusion criteria were retrospectively reviewed, including 29 males and 5 females, aged 17.1±4.3 years (range, 12-30 years). All of the patients had a minimum follow-up of 2 years. According to the distal fusion level, patients were divided into 2 groups. Group sagittal stable vertebra (SSV) (22 cases) included patients whose lowest instrumented vertebra (LIV) was SSV; Group SSV-1 (12 cases) included patients who had a LIV one level above the SSV. Radiographic parameters including global kyphosis (GK), lumbar lordosis (LL), sagittal vertical axis (SVA), pelvic incidence (PI), pelvic tilt (PT), and sacral slope (SS) were measured in the standing radiographs before and after operation and at the latest follow up. Intraoperative and postoperative complications were recorded. The Scoliosis Research Society-22 questionnaire (SRS-22) were conducted at pre-operation and the final follow up to evaluate the clinical outcomes. The sagittal radiographic parameters and the incidence of distal junctional kyphosis (DJK) were compared between the two groups.Results:There were no significant differences in terms of age, sex, radiographic measurements and scores of SRS-22 between two groups preoperatively ( P>0.05). The correction rates of GK in the SSV group and the SSV-1 group were 42.8%±7.6% and 43.2%±8.4% ( t=0.151, P=0.881) respectively. While the correction rates loss were 1.2%±5.2% and 3.9%±7.2% ( t=0.767, P=0.449) at the latest follow up. No significant difference was observed in terms of other radiographic parameters ( P>0.05). During the postoperative follow up period, 3 patients (16.7%) in SSV group and 2 patients (13.6%) in SSV-1 group developed DJK. The incidence of DJK did not show any significant difference between two groups ( χ2=0.057, P=0.812). At the final follow-up, the function scores of SRS-22 in SSV-1 group (4.1±0.6) was significantly higher than SSV group (3.7±0.5) ( t=2.300, P=0.028) and there was no significant difference in the rest of the domain ( P>0.05). Conclusion:Compared with stopping at SSV, fusion to SSV-1 could achieve comparable curve correction with the preservation of more lumbar motility. Moreover, it would not increase the risk of DJK. As a result, we recommend selecting SSV-1 as the ideal LIV for SK patients.
