Pithwa Yogesh Kishorkant
Department of Spine Surgery, HOSMAT Hospital, Bengaluru, India.
Asian Spine J. 2018 Jun;12(3):563-568. doi: 10.4184/asj.2018.12.3.563. Epub 2018 Jun 4.
Retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data.
To assess the relative advantages of implant constructs with and without pedicle screws in the concave apex for correcting scoliosis.
Concave apical pedicles in scoliosis can be narrow and dysplastic. Neural structures also migrate toward concavity, leaving little room for error while inserting pedicle screws into the concave apex.
Patients (n=35) undergoing scoliosis surgery from September 2004 to September 2009 with minimum 5-year follow-up period were included. Exclusion criteria were pseudarthrosis, implant failure, infection, anterior release surgery, corrective osteotomies, incomplete data, constructs not involving anchors at the apex of the curve, and kyphoscoliosis. Curves were classified into two groups as follows: group A, with screws alone anchoring the convex apex and the correction performed from the convex side and group B, with screws anchoring the concave apex with or without convex apex purchase and the correction performed from the concave side.
Twenty-two of 35 patients were selected. In these patients, 29 individual curves were selected and classified into groups A (n=15) and B (n=14). Both groups were comparable in terms of age, sex, and etiology (idiopathic and nonidiopathic). However, group A had larger (68.53°±26.29°) and more rigid (29.04%±18.22% flexibility) curves than group B (50.14°±16.89° with 49.87%±25.01% flexibility) (two-tailed <0.05). Despite this, the immediate postoperative correction was comparable between the two groups (A, 57.98%±16.28%; B, 62.76%±13.13%; two-tailed =0.39). Interestingly, group A showed significantly better results in terms of the gain of instrumented correction over and above preoperative flexibility (A, 28.94%±8.51%; B, 12.89%±23.06%; two-tailed =0.03). There was no statistically significant difference in the correction percentage of sagittal profile between the two groups and in the loss of correction at follow-up or Scoliosis Research Society-22 scores.
Present study could not demonstrate any advantages associated with use of apical concave pedicle screws.
对前瞻性收集的数据进行回顾性分析。
评估在凹侧顶点使用和不使用椎弓根螺钉的植入物结构在矫正脊柱侧弯方面的相对优势。
脊柱侧弯患者的凹侧顶椎椎弓根可能狭窄且发育不良。神经结构也会向凹侧移位,在向凹侧顶点插入椎弓根螺钉时容错空间很小。
纳入2004年9月至2009年9月期间接受脊柱侧弯手术且随访期至少5年的患者(n = 35)。排除标准包括假关节形成、植入物失败、感染、前路松解手术、矫正截骨术、数据不完整、在弯曲顶点不涉及锚定的结构以及脊柱后凸侧弯。将弯曲分为两组如下:A组,仅用螺钉固定凸侧顶点并从凸侧进行矫正;B组,用螺钉固定凹侧顶点,无论是否固定凸侧顶点,并从凹侧进行矫正。
35例患者中选出22例。在这些患者中,选出29个个体弯曲并分为A组(n = 15)和B组(n = 14)。两组在年龄、性别和病因(特发性和非特发性)方面具有可比性。然而,A组的弯曲角度更大(68.53°±26.29°)且更僵硬(柔韧性为29.04%±18.22%),而B组为(50.14°±16.89°,柔韧性为49.87%±25.01%)(双尾检验P<0.05)。尽管如此,两组术后即刻矫正效果相当(A组为57.98%±16.28%;B组为62.76%±13.13%;双尾检验P = 0.39)。有趣的是,在术前柔韧性基础上的器械矫正增益方面,A组结果明显更好(A组为28.94%±8.51%;B组为12.89%±23.06%;双尾检验P = 0.03)。两组在矢状面轮廓矫正百分比、随访时矫正丢失情况或脊柱侧弯研究学会22项评分方面均无统计学显著差异。
本研究未能证明使用凹侧顶椎椎弓根螺钉有任何优势。