Anterior versus posterior selective fusion for Lenke 5C adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: the evolution of coronal imbalance
10.3760/cma.j.cn121113-20250210-00122
- VernacularTitle:Lenke 5C型青少年特发性脊柱侧凸前路或后路选择性融合术后冠状面平衡重建
- Author:
Yu WANG
1
;
Yinyu FANG
1
;
Jie LI
1
;
Kiram ABDUKAHAR·
1
;
Zongshan HU
1
;
Bin WANG
1
;
Zhen LIU
1
;
Zezhang ZHU
1
;
Yong QIU
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:
Adolescent;
Scoliosis;
Spinal fusion;
Lenke 5C;
Coronal balance
- From:
Chinese Journal of Orthopaedics
2025;45(9):561-570
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective:To investigate the effect of anterior and posterior selective fusion strategy on evolution of coronal pattern in patients with Lenke 5C adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) and whether upper end vertebra (UEV)-1 strategy in anterior surgery would have an effect on postoperative coronal balance.Methods:A total of 108 Lenke 5C AIS patients with at least 2 years follow-up who underwent anterior or posterior selective thoracolumbar fusion surgery from January 2005 to December 2020 were enrolled, with 51 patients in the anterior group and 57 patients in the posterior group. The patients were categorized into three groups (type A, C 7PL-CSVL<20 mm; type B, C 7PL-CSVL ≥20 mm with C 7PL toward the concave side of the main curve; and type C, C 7PL-CSVL≥20 mm with C 7PL toward the convex side of the main curve) to investigate the evolution of coronal balance of each preoperative coronal pattern at the anterior and posterior groups. Parameters such as thoracolumbar Cobb angle, rate of coronal imbalance, and SRS-22 score were recorded at preoperative, 1 week postoperatively, and final follow-up in both groups. Results:The differences of basic date between the two groups were not statistically significant except for the fusion level (5.2±0.7 vs. 5.6±0.9, t=2.497, P=0.014). In the anterior group, a total of 27 patients with preoperative type A, 23 patients with preoperative type A maintained type A at the 1 week postoperatively, and 2 of them were converted to type C at the final follow-up. Four patients with preoperative type A converted to type C at the 1 week postoperatively, and all of them returned to type A at the final follow-up. A total of 23 patients with preoperative type C, four patients with preoperative type C maintained type C at the 1 week postoperatively, and one of them maintained type C at the final follow-up. Nineteen patients with preoperative type C converted to type A at the 1 week postoperatively, and all of them maintained type A at the final follow-up. In the posterior group, a total of 26 patients with preoperative type A, 22 patients with preoperative type A maintained type A at the 1 week postoperatively, and only 2 of these patients converted to type C at the final follow-up. Four of the preoperative type A patients converted to type C at the 1 week postoperatively, and all of them returned to type A at the final follow-up. A total of 29 patients with preoperative type C, thirteen patients with preoperative type C maintained type C at the 1 week postoperatively, and 7 of them maintained type C at the last follow-up. Sixteen patients with preoperative type C converted to type A at the 1 week postoperatively, of whom two converted to type C at the final follow-up. For patients with preoperative type C the rate of coronal imbalance was significantly lower in the anterior group than in the posterior group both in the immediate postoperative period (17% vs. 45%, P<0.05) and at the final follow-up (4% vs. 31%, P=0.038). The rate of coronal imbalance at final follow-up was significantly lower in the UEV-1 group than in the UEV group in the posterior approach (3% vs. 38%, P<0.05), and there was no difference between the two groups in the anterior approach. There were no significant differences in radiographic parameters and SRS-22 scores between the two groups, except for the thoracic Cobb angle at the final follow-up, which was greater in the anterior group than in the posterior group at the final follow-up (19.5±7.3 vs.16.4±5.6, t=2.427, P=0.017). Multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed that anterior surgery and Risser were risk factors for postoperative CIB of preoperative type C ( OR=21.138, P=0.030 and OR=0.406, P=0.048 respectively). Conclusion:For patients with preoperative type A, both anterior and posterior procedures lead to a satisfactory reconstruction of coronal balance. In patients with preoperative type C, anterior surgery acquire a better reconstruction of coronal balance. The strategy of proximal UEV-1 was similar to the strategy of UEV in terms of restoring coronary balance in anterior approach and it was unable to lower the rate of postoperative coronal imbalance. In contrast, UEV-1 strategy in posterior surgery was effective in reducing the rate of postoperative coronal imbalance.
