Comparative Analysis of Combined (First Anterior, Then Posterior) Versus Only Posterior Approach for Treating Severe Scoliosis: A Mean Follow Up of 8.5 Years

• Published in: Spine (Philadelphia, Pa. 1976) Pa. 1976), 2017-06, Vol.42 (11), p.831-837
• Main Authors: Hero, Nikša, Vengust, Rok, Topolovec, Matevž
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Adolescent; Child; Deformity; Female; Follow-Up Studies; Humans; Male; Pedicle Screws; Radiography; Retrospective Studies; Scoliosis - diagnostic imaging; Scoliosis - surgery; Spinal Fusion - instrumentation; Spinal Fusion - methods; Spine - diagnostic imaging; Spine - surgery; Treatment Outcome
• ISSN: 0362-2436; 1528-1159
• DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000002059

A retrospective, one center, institutional review board approved study. Two methods of operative treatments were compared in order to evaluate whether a two-stage approach is justified for correction of bigger idiopathic scoliosis curves. Two stage surgery, combined anterior approach in first operation and posterior instrumentation and correction in the second operation. One stage surgery included only posterior instrumentation and correction. Studies comparing two-stage approach and only posterior approach are rather scarce, with shorter follow up and lack of clinical data. Three hundred forty eight patients with idiopathic scoliosis were operated using Cotrel-Dubousset (CD) hybrid instrumentation with pedicle screw and hooks. Only patients with curvatures more than or equal to 61° were analyzed and divided in two groups: two stage surgery (N = 30) and one stage surgery (N = 46). The radiographic parameters as well as duration of operation, hospitalization time, and number of segments included in fusion and clinical outcome were analyzed. No statistically significant difference was observed in correction between two-stage group (average correction 69%) and only posterior approach group (average correction 66%). However, there were statistically significant differences regarding hospitalization time, duration of the surgery, and the number of instrumented segments. Two-stage surgery has only a limited advantage in terms of postoperative correction angle compared with the posterior approach. Posterior instrumentation and correction is satisfactory, especially taking into account that the patient is subjected to only one surgery. 3.