Posterior minimally invasive surgery for treating paralytic scoliosis with pelvic obliquity in children following spinal cord injury
10.3760/cma.j.cn121113-20240722-00416
- VernacularTitle:后路微创矫形术治疗伴严重骨盆倾斜的儿童脊髓损伤后麻痹性脊柱侧凸
- Author:
Yi CHEN
1
;
Xiaodong QIN
1
;
Zhong HE
1
;
Zhen LIU
1
;
Saihu MAO
1
;
Benlong SHI
1
;
Yong QIU
1
;
Zezhang ZHU
1
Author Information
1. 南京大学医学院附属鼓楼医院骨科脊柱外科，南京 210008
- Publication Type:Journal Article
- Keywords:
Spinal cord injury;
Scoliosis;
Minimally invasive surgical procedures;
Comparative effectiveness research
- From:
Chinese Journal of Orthopaedics
2025;45(2):67-76
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective:To compare the clinical efficacy of Minimally Invasive Surgery (MIS) and traditional Posterior Spinal Fusion (PSF) in treating children with paralytic scoliosis with pelvic obliquity (PSPO) following spinal cord injury.Methods:A retrospective analysis was conducted on the data of 25 patients with PSPO who underwent surgical treatment at the Drum Tower Hospital affiliated with Nanjing University Medical School from January 2017 to June 2023. The cohort included 4 males and 21 females, aged 12.3±2.8 years (range 9-14 years). Patients were divided into the MIS group (12 cases) and the PSF group (13 cases). Radiological parameters were measured preoperatively, postoperatively, and at the last follow-up. Surgical time, intraoperative blood loss, intraoperative blood transfusion volume, length of hospital stay, total hospitalization costs, and complications were recorded. The Scoliosis Research Society questionnaires-22 (SRS-22) Chinese version were used to assess patient satisfaction and efficacy.Results:There were no statistically significant differences between the MIS and PSF groups in age, gender, Risser sign, preoperative Cobb angle for scoliosis, pelvic tilt angle, or local kyphosis angle ( P>0.05). The MIS group demonstrated surgical time of 176±30 minutes, intraoperative blood loss of 300±70 ml, blood transfusion volume of 280±175 ml, and total hospitalization costs of 87'800± 13'300 yuan, all of which were lower than PSF group, with values of 280±91 minutes, 1'433±116 ml, 1'351±996 ml, and 14'8400±26'100 yuan, respectively. These differences were statistically significant ( t=3.789, P=0.001; t=29.328, P<0.001; t=3.667, P=0.001; t=7.271, P<0.001). In the MIS group, preoperative, postoperative, and last follow-up Cobb angles were 79.11°±6.74°, 35.86°±4.98°, and 36.27°±4.84° respectively; pelvic tilt angles were 24.79°±5.58°, 9.18°±3.32°, and 8.79°±2.94°; local kyphosis angles were 38.84°±4.18°, 12.96°±4.87°, and 11.43°±6.08°, respectively. Postoperative and last follow-up angles were significantly reduced compared to preoperative values, with statistically significant differences ( P<0.05). In the PSF group, preoperative, postoperative, and last follow-up Cobb angles were 82.06°±9.26°, 34.75°±5.14°, and 35.15°±5.04° respectively; pelvic tilt angles were 26.60°±6.21°, 10.12°±3.21°, and 9.91°±2.97°; local kyphosis angles were 40.92°±7.04°, 10.92°±7.26°, and 14.02°±5.58°, respectively. Differences from preoperative to postoperative measurements were statistically significant ( P<0.05). At the last follow-up, both groups showed no significant loss of scoliosis correction, and there were no statistically significant differences between the groups postoperatively or at the last follow-up ( P>0.05). In the MIS group, one case of superficial surgical site infection and one case of postoperative atelectasis occurred. In the PSF group, two cases of deep surgical site infection, one case of poor screw placement, and two cases were transferred to the ICU postoperatively due to excessive intraoperative bleeding. Preoperative SRS-22 total scores were 2.0±0.6 for PSF and 2.1±0.4 for MIS. Postoperative SRS-22 total scores (excluding satisfaction) were 3.0±0.5 for PSF and 2.9±0.3 for MIS. The within-group differences from preoperative to postoperative were statistically significant ( P<0.05), while the between-group differences from preoperative to postoperative were not statistically significant ( P>0.05). Conclusion:Compared to the PSF technique, MIS can shorten surgery time, reduce intraoperative blood loss and perioperative complications, and decrease hospitalization costs. MIS can achieve similar early clinical efficacy.
