Spine deformity · 2023
Results of posterior spinal fusion after failed anterior vertebral body tethering.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Samdani Amer F, Plachta Stephen M, Pahys Joshua M, Quinonez Alejandro, Samuel Solomon P, Hwang Stephen W
Аннотация
PURPOSE: In patients with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) undergoing anterior vertebral tethering (AVBT), some will subsequently require posterior spinal fusion (PSF). Limited data exist on clinical and radiographic outcomes of fusion after tether failure.
METHODS: 490 patients who underwent AVBT were retrospectively analyzed. Twenty patients (4.1%) subsequently underwent conversion to PSF. A control group of patients with primary PSF (no previous AVBT) was matched for comparison. Data were compared using paired t-tests and Fisher Exact Tests.
RESULTS: There was a significant increase in estimated blood loss (EBL) (p = 0.002), percent estimated blood volume (%EBV) (p = 0.013), operative time (p = 0.002), and increased amount of fluoroscopy (mGy) (p = 0.04) as well as number of levels fused (p = 0.02) in the AVBT conversion group compared to primary fusion. However, no difference was found in implant density (p = 0.37), blood transfusions (p = 0.11), or intraoperative neuromonitoring events (p > 0.99). Both groups attained similar thoracic and lumbar percent correction (major coronal curve angle) from pre-op to the latest follow-up (thoracic p = 0.507, lumbar p = 0.952).
CONCLUSION: A subset of patients with AVBT will require conversion to PSF. Although technically more challenging, revision surgery can be safely performed with similar clinical and radiographic outcomes to primary PSF.
METHODS: 490 patients who underwent AVBT were retrospectively analyzed. Twenty patients (4.1%) subsequently underwent conversion to PSF. A control group of patients with primary PSF (no previous AVBT) was matched for comparison. Data were compared using paired t-tests and Fisher Exact Tests.
RESULTS: There was a significant increase in estimated blood loss (EBL) (p = 0.002), percent estimated blood volume (%EBV) (p = 0.013), operative time (p = 0.002), and increased amount of fluoroscopy (mGy) (p = 0.04) as well as number of levels fused (p = 0.02) in the AVBT conversion group compared to primary fusion. However, no difference was found in implant density (p = 0.37), blood transfusions (p = 0.11), or intraoperative neuromonitoring events (p > 0.99). Both groups attained similar thoracic and lumbar percent correction (major coronal curve angle) from pre-op to the latest follow-up (thoracic p = 0.507, lumbar p = 0.952).
CONCLUSION: A subset of patients with AVBT will require conversion to PSF. Although technically more challenging, revision surgery can be safely performed with similar clinical and radiographic outcomes to primary PSF.