Hyper-Selective Posterior Fusion is Recommended When the Modified S-Line is Positive in Lenke 5C Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis

Overview

Journal Orthop Surg

Specialty Orthopedics

Date 2024 May 5

PMID 38706032

Authors

Qi Gu

Hongda Bao

Shibin Shu

Xin Zhang

Yong Qiu

Zezhang Zhu

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Objective: Postoperative coronal decompensation and less fusion level are dilemmas and the proper selective posterior fusion (SPF) strategy should be investigated. We proposed a parameter, modified S-line, and aimed to investigate if the modified S-line could predict postoperative coronal decompensation in patients with Lenke 5C adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS).

Methods: This is a retrospective radiographic study and Lenke 5C AIS patients undergoing SPF during the period from September 2017 to June 2021 were included. The modified S-line was defined as the line linking the centers of the concave-side pedicles of the upper end vertebra (UEV) and lower end vertebra (LEV) at baseline. A modified S-line tilt to the right is established as modified S-line+ (UEV being to the right of the LEV). The patients were further categorized into two groups: the Cobb to Cobb fusion group and the Cobb-1 to Cobb fusion group. Outcomes including thoracic Cobb angle, TL/L Cobb angle, coronal balance, upper instrumented vertebra (UIV) translation, lower instrumented vertebra (LIV) translation, UIV tilt, LIV tilt, LIV disc angle, thoracic apical vertebral translation, lumbar apical vertebral translation (L-AVT), L-T AVT ratio, L-T Cobb were measured at baseline, immediately after surgery, and the last follow-up. Radiographic parameters and the incidence of both proximal and distal decompensation between the two groups were compared by chi-square test.

Results: Among 92 patients, 48 were modified S-line+ and 44 were modified S-line-. Modified S-line+ status was identified as a risk factor for postoperative proximal decompensation (p = 0.005) during follow-up. In Cobb to Cobb group, a higher occurrence of proximal decompensation in individuals with modified S-line+ status (p = 0.001) was confirmed. Also, in the Cobb to Cobb group with baseline modified S-line+ status, patients presenting decompensation showed a significantly larger baseline of the UIV tilt and postoperative disc angle below the lower instrumented vertebra. However, In Cobb-1 group, the incidence of decompensation after surgery showed no association with baseline modified S-line tilt status (p = 0.815 and 0.540, respectively).

Conclusion: The modified S-line could serve as an important parameter in surgical decision-making for Lenke 5C AIS patients. Cobb to Cobb SPF is not recommended with a modified S-line+ status, and the Cobb-1 to Cobb fusion may serve as a potential alternative.

References

Hu B, Yang X, Yang H, Liu L, Chen P, Wang L . Coronal Imbalance in Lenke 5C Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis Regarding Selecting the Lowest Instrumented Vertebra: Lower End Vertebra versus Lower End Vertebra +1 in Posterior Fusion. World Neurosurg. 2018; 117:e522-e529. DOI: 10.1016/j.wneu.2018.06.070. View

Banno T, Yamato Y, Oba H, Ohba T, Hasegawa T, Yoshida G . Should the upper end vertebra be selected as the upper instrumented vertebra in patients with Lenke type 5C adolescent idiopathic scoliosis?. Spine Deform. 2022; 10(5):1139-1148. DOI: 10.1007/s43390-022-00496-7. View

Qin X, He Z, Yin R, Qiu Y, Zhu Z . Where to stop distally in Lenke modifier C AIS with lumbar curve more than 60°: L3 or L4?. Clin Neurol Neurosurg. 2019; 178:77-81. DOI: 10.1016/j.clineuro.2019.02.005. View

Ilharreborde B, Ferrero E, Angelliaume A, Lefevre Y, Accadbled F, Simon A . Selective versus hyperselective posterior fusions in Lenke 5 adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: comparison of radiological and clinical outcomes. Eur Spine J. 2017; 26(6):1739-1747. DOI: 10.1007/s00586-017-5070-2. View

Lee C, Ha J, Hwang C, Lee D, Kim T, Cho J . Is it enough to stop distal fusion at L3 in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis with major thoracolumbar/lumbar curves?. Eur Spine J. 2016; 25(10):3256-3264. DOI: 10.1007/s00586-015-4373-4. View

Oba H, Takahashi J, Kobayashi S, Ohba T, Ikegami S, Kuraishi S . Upper instrumented vertebra to the right of the lowest instrumented vertebra as a predictor of an increase in the main thoracic curve after selective posterior fusion for the thoracolumbar/lumbar curve in Lenke type 5C adolescent idiopathic.... J Neurosurg Spine. 2019; 31(6):857-864. DOI: 10.3171/2019.5.SPINE181469. View

Qin X, Sun W, Xu L, Liu Z, Qiu Y, Zhu Z . Selecting the Last "Substantially" Touching Vertebra as Lowest Instrumented Vertebra in Lenke Type 1A Curve: Radiographic Outcomes With a Minimum of 2-year Follow-Up. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2015; 41(12):E742-E750. DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000001374. View

Li J, Hwang S, Shi Z, Yan N, Yang C, Wang C . Analysis of radiographic parameters relevant to the lowest instrumented vertebrae and postoperative coronal balance in Lenke 5C patients. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2011; 36(20):1673-8. DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3182091fba. View

Yamauchi I, Nakashima H, Machino M, Ito S, Segi N, Tauchi R . Relationship between lumbosacral transitional vertebra and postoperative outcomes of patients with Lenke 5C adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: a minimum 5-year follow-up study. Eur Spine J. 2023; 32(6):2221-2227. DOI: 10.1007/s00586-023-07752-y. View

10.

ODonnell C, Michael N, Pan X, Emans J, Garg S, Erickson M . Anterior Spinal Fusion and Posterior Spinal Fusion Both Effectively Treat Lenke Type 5 Curves in Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis: A Multicenter Study. Spine Deform. 2018; 6(3):231-240. DOI: 10.1016/j.jspd.2017.09.054. View

11.

Li J, Zhao Z, Tseng C, Zhu Z, Qiu Y, Liu Z . Selective Fusion in Lenke 5 Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis. World Neurosurg. 2018; 118:e784-e791. DOI: 10.1016/j.wneu.2018.07.052. View

12.

Sun Z, Qiu G, Zhao Y, Wang Y, Zhang J, Shen J . Lowest instrumented vertebrae selection for selective posterior fusion of moderate thoracolumbar/lumbar idiopathic scoliosis: lower-end vertebra or lower-end vertebra+1?. Eur Spine J. 2014; 23(6):1251-7. DOI: 10.1007/s00586-014-3276-0. View

13.

Kim D, Hyun S, Kim K . Selection of Fusion Level for Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis Surgery : Selective Fusion versus Postoperative Decompensation. J Korean Neurosurg Soc. 2021; 64(4):473-485. PMC: 8273784. DOI: 10.3340/jkns.2020.0258. View

14.

Baghdadi S, Baldwin K . Selection of Fusion Levels in Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med. 2023; 17(1):23-36. PMC: 10767118. DOI: 10.1007/s12178-023-09876-6. View

15.

Bernstein R, Hall J . Solid rod short segment anterior fusion in thoracolumbar scoliosis. J Pediatr Orthop B. 1998; 7(2):124-31. DOI: 10.1097/01202412-199804000-00006. View

16.

Sudo H, Kaneda K, Shono Y, Iwasaki N . Selection of the upper vertebra to be instrumented in the treatment of thoracolumbar and lumbar adolescent idiopathic scoliosis by anterior correction and fusion surgery using dual-rod instrumentation: a minimum 12-year follow-up study. Spine J. 2015; 16(3):281-7. DOI: 10.1016/j.spinee.2015.08.021. View

17.

Chang D, Yang J, Suk S, Suh S, Kim Y, Cho W . Importance of Distal Fusion Level in Major Thoracolumbar and Lumbar Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis Treated by Rod Derotation and Direct Vertebral Rotation Following Pedicle Screw Instrumentation. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2016; 42(15):E890-E898. DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000001998. View

18.

Li Z, Du Y, Zhao Y, Lin G, Zhang H, Li C . Lowest Instrumented Vertebra at L3 Versus L4 in Posterior Fusion for Moderate Lenke 5C Type Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis: A Case-Match Radiological Study. Neurospine. 2024; 20(4):1380-1388. PMC: 10762403. DOI: 10.14245/ns.2346822.411. View

19.

Yanik H, Ketenci I, Erdem S . Lowest instrumented vertebrae selection in posterior fusion of Lenke 3C/6C adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: L3 versus L4, when LEV is L4. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2023; 143(9):5583-5588. DOI: 10.1007/s00402-023-04872-4. View

20.

Wang Y, Bunger C, Zhang Y, Wu C, Li H, Dahl B . Lowest instrumented vertebra selection for Lenke 5C scoliosis: a minimum 2-year radiographical follow-up. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2013; 38(14):E894-900. DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e31829537be. View