Vertebral body tethering in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis with more than 2 years of follow-up- systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Whilst spinal fusion remains the gold standard in the treatment of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS), anterior vertebral body tethering (AVBT) is gaining momentum with relatively few studies on its efficacy thus far.

PURPOSE

To conduct a systematic review reporting on the early results of AVBT for patients undergoing surgery for AIS. We aimed to systematically evaluate the relevant literature pertaining to the efficacy of AVBT with respect to degree of correction of the major curve Cobb angle, complications and revision rates.

STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: Systematic review.

PATIENT SAMPLE

Of a total of 259 articles, 9 studies met the inclusion criteria and were analysed. Overall, 196 patients of (mean age 12.08 years) underwent an AVBT procedure for correction of AIS with a mean follow-up of 34 months.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Degree of Cobb angle correction, complications and revision rates were used as outcome measures.

METHODS

A systematic review of the literature on AVBT was performed for studies published between Jan 1999-March 2021 applying the PRISMA guidelines. Isolated case reports were excluded.

RESULTS

Overall, 196 patients of (mean age 12.08 years) underwent an AVBT procedure for correction of AIS with a mean follow-up of 34 months. There was a significant correction of the main thoracic curve of scoliosis (mean preoperative Cobb angle 48.5°, post-operative Cobb angle at final follow-up of 20.1°, P = 0.01). Overcorrection and mechanical complications were seen in 14.3% and 27.5% of cases, respectively. Pulmonary complications including atelectasis and pleural effusion were seen in 9.7% of patients. Tether revision was performed in 7.85%, and revision to a spinal fusion in 7.88%.

CONCLUSION

This systematic review incorporated 9 studies of AVBT and 196 patients with AIS. The complication and revision to spinal fusion rates were 27.5% and 7.88%, respectively. The current literature on AVBT is restricted largely to retrospective studies with non-randomised data. We would recommend a prospective, multi-centre trial of AVBT with strict inclusion criteria and standardised outcome measures.