Comparison of the efficacy of the convex side short fusion combined with concave side single growing rod technique and the traditional bilateral growing rod technique in the treatment of early onset scoliosis.

OBJECTIVES

The application of a growing rod technique can retain the growth and development potential of the spine and thorax while controlling the progression of scoliosis deformity. Theoretically, convex side short fusion combined with a concave side single growing rod technique can significantly reduce the asymmetric growth of the spine in the vertex region in most patients. However, the final clinical outcome of various techniques is yet to be clearly determined and compared between studies. Therefore, we compared the efficacy of these two growing rod techniques in treating early onset scoliosis.

METHODS

In a retrospective study of 152 EOS patients seen between 2013.1 and 2019.12, 36 cases of EOS patients were selected for inclusion. Among the 36 cases, 11 cases were treated with convex side short fusion combined with a concave side single growing rod technique, group (A) The remaining 25 cases were treated with traditional bilateral growing rod technique, group (B) Age, gender, etiology, follow-up time, Cobb angle of main curve, T1-S1 height, coronal trunk shift, sagittal vertical axis (SVA), Cobb angle of thoracic kyphosis at last follow-up, and Cobb angle at proximal junction kyphosis of the first and last post-operation follow-up were recorded. In addition, internal fixation related complications, infection, nervous system complications were recorded as well.

RESULTS

There was no statistically significant difference between group A and group B in preoperative age, Cobb angle of main curve, coronal trunk shift, T1-S1 height, SVA, Cobb angle of thoracic kyphosis (p > 0.05). However, at the last follow-up (Group A, mean 4.4 ± 1.01 years; Group B, mean 3.6 ± 0.01 years) the Cobb angle of the main curve was less and T1-S1 height greater in group A compared with group B (p < 0.05). There was no statistically significant difference between group A and group B in the correction rate of the Cobb angle of the main curve or the growth rate of T1-S1 height (p > 0.05). There was no statistically significant difference in the coronal imbalance ratio, thoracic kyphosis abnormality ratio, or the occurrence PJK ratio between group A and group B at the last follow-up (p > 0.05), but the sagittal imbalance ratio and internal fixation abnormality ratio were higher in group A than in the group B (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

During the treatment of EOS, both the convex side short fusion combined with concave side single growing rod technique and traditional bilateral growing rod technique can correct the Cobb angle of main curve with no significant hindering of the spinal growth observed. The traditional bilateral growing rod technique has advantages in control of the sagittal balance of the spine, and the complications associated with internal fixation were lower.