Three- Instead of Two-dimensional Evaluation of Key Parameters Alters the Choice of the Lowest Instrumented Vertebra in Lenke 1 and 2 AIS Patients

Overview

Journal Spine Deform

Publisher Springer Nature

Date 2023 Jun 7

PMID 37284907

Authors

Sebastiaan Schelfaut

Pierre Moens

Thomas Overbergh

Steven Cornelis

Anja Van Campenhout

Lieven Moke

Lennart Scheys

Thijs Ackermans

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Purpose: Treatment of AIS, a three-dimensional spinal (3D) deformity, is guided by a two-dimensional (2D) evaluation. Novel 3D approaches that address the 2D limitations have not been adopted in AIS care due to their lengthy and complex 3D reconstruction procedures. This study aims to introduce a simple 3D method that translates the 2D key parameters (Stable vertebra (SV), Lenke lumbar modifier, Neutral vertebra (NV)) into 3D and to quantitively compare these 3D corrected parameters to the 2D assessment.

Methods: The key parameters of 79 surgically treated Lenke 1 and 2 patients were measured in 2D by two experienced spine surgeons. Next, these key parameters were measured in 3D by indicating relevant landmarks on biplanar radiographs and using the 'true' 3D CSVL which was perpendicular to the pelvic plane. Differences between the 2D and 3D analysis were examined.

Results: A 2D-3D mismatch was identified in 33/79 patients (41.8%) for at least one of the key parameters. More specifically, a 2D-3D mismatch was identified in 35.4% of patients for the Sag SV, 22.5% of patients for the SV and 17.7% of patients for the lumbar modifier. No differences in L4 tilt and NV rotation were found.

Conclusion: The findings highlight that a 3D evaluation alters the choice of the LIV in Lenke 1 and 2 AIS patients. Although, the true impact of this more precise 3D measurement on preventing poor radiographic outcome needs further investigation, the results are a first step toward establishing a basis for 3D assessments in daily practice.

References

Sarwahi V, Wendolowski S, Gecelter R, Maguire K, Gambassi M, Orlando D . When Do Patients Return to Physical Activities and Athletics After Scoliosis Surgery?: A Validated Patient Questionnaire Based Study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2017; 43(3):167-171. DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000002284. View

Fabricant P, Admoni S, Green D, Ipp L, Widmann R . Return to athletic activity after posterior spinal fusion for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: analysis of independent predictors. J Pediatr Orthop. 2012; 32(3):259-65. DOI: 10.1097/BPO.0b013e31824b285f. View

Fischer C, Lenke L, Bridwell K, Boachie-Adjei O, Gupta M, Kim Y . Optimal Lowest Instrumented Vertebra for Thoracic Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis. Spine Deform. 2018; 6(3):250-256. DOI: 10.1016/j.jspd.2017.10.002. View

Liu C, Lenke L, Tan L, Oh T, Chao K, Lin S . Selection of the Lowest Instrumented Vertebra and Relative Odds Ratio of Distal Adding-on for Lenke Type 1A and 2A Curves in Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Neurospine. 2021; 17(4):902-909. PMC: 7788412. DOI: 10.14245/ns.2040234.117. View

Suk S, Lee S, Chung E, Kim J, Kim W, Sohn H . Determination of distal fusion level with segmental pedicle screw fixation in single thoracic idiopathic scoliosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2003; 28(5):484-91. DOI: 10.1097/01.BRS.0000048653.75549.40. View

Illes T, Tunyogi-Csapo M, Somoskeoy S . Breakthrough in three-dimensional scoliosis diagnosis: significance of horizontal plane view and vertebra vectors. Eur Spine J. 2010; 20(1):135-43. PMC: 3036019. DOI: 10.1007/s00586-010-1566-8. View

Lam G, Hill D, Le L, Raso J, Lou E . Vertebral rotation measurement: a summary and comparison of common radiographic and CT methods. Scoliosis. 2008; 3:16. PMC: 2587463. DOI: 10.1186/1748-7161-3-16. View

Kadoury S, Cheriet F, Laporte C, Labelle H . A versatile 3D reconstruction system of the spine and pelvis for clinical assessment of spinal deformities. Med Biol Eng Comput. 2007; 45(6):591-602. DOI: 10.1007/s11517-007-0182-1. View

Pasha S, Cahill P, Dormans J, Flynn J . Characterizing the differences between the 2D and 3D measurements of spine in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Eur Spine J. 2016; 25(10):3137-3145. DOI: 10.1007/s00586-016-4582-5. View

10.

Labelle H, Aubin C, Jackson R, Lenke L, Newton P, Parent S . Seeing the spine in 3D: how will it change what we do?. J Pediatr Orthop. 2010; 31(1 Suppl):S37-45. DOI: 10.1097/BPO.0b013e3181fd8801. View

11.

Sangole A, Aubin C, Labelle H, Stokes I, Lenke L, Jackson R . Three-dimensional classification of thoracic scoliotic curves. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2009; 34(1):91-9. DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181877bbb. View

12.

Overbergh T, Severijns P, Beaucage-Gauvreau E, Jonkers I, Moke L, Scheys L . Development and validation of a modeling workflow for the generation of image-based, subject-specific thoracolumbar models of spinal deformity. J Biomech. 2020; 110:109946. DOI: 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2020.109946. View

13.

Cho R, Yaszay B, Bartley C, Bastrom T, Newton P . Which Lenke 1A curves are at the greatest risk for adding-on... and why?. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2012; 37(16):1384-90. DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e31824bac7a. View

14.

Erickson M, Baulesh D . Lowest instrumented vertebra selection in AIS. J Pediatr Orthop. 2010; 31(1 Suppl):S69-76. DOI: 10.1097/BPO.0b013e318202bfcd. View

15.

Cho K, Lenke L, Bridwell K, Kamiya M, Sides B . Selection of the optimal distal fusion level in posterior instrumentation and fusion for thoracic hyperkyphosis: the sagittal stable vertebra concept. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2009; 34(8):765-70. DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e31819e28ed. View

16.

Severijns P, Overbergh T, Thauvoye A, Baudewijns J, Monari D, Moke L . A subject-specific method to measure dynamic spinal alignment in adult spinal deformity. Spine J. 2020; 20(6):934-946. DOI: 10.1016/j.spinee.2020.02.004. View

17.

Potter B, Rosner M, Lehman Jr R, Polly Jr D, Schroeder T, Kuklo T . Reliability of end, neutral, and stable vertebrae identification in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2005; 30(14):1658-63. DOI: 10.1097/01.brs.0000170290.05381.9a. View