A 5-year follow-up of the effect of corrective surgery in young adults with idiopathic scoliosis.
Adult spinal deformity
Patient-reported outcome measures
Surgical decision making
Young adult idiopathic scoliosis
Journal
Spine deformity
ISSN: 2212-1358
Titre abrégé: Spine Deform
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101603979
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
05 2023
05 2023
Historique:
received:
09
07
2022
accepted:
31
12
2022
medline:
1
5
2023
pubmed:
7
1
2023
entrez:
6
1
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The purpose of this study was to determine mid-long-term outcomes (5 years) following surgery for young adult idiopathic scoliosis (YAdIS). This is a retrospective review of a prospective, multicenter adult deformity database including patients operated on idiopathic scoliosis by a single posterior approach, age at surgery between 19 and 29 (considered young adults), and 5-year follow-up. Demographic, radiographic and PROMS were analyzed preoperatively, at 2 years and at final follow-up. Forty-two patients were included. Mean preoperative major curve angle was 59.65 ± 18.94. Main coronal curve initial correction was 56.38%, with 6% loss at 5 years. From baseline to 5 years after surgery, there was improvement in all PROMs (P < 0.004)-especially self-image-, except NRS-leg pain. This improvement was present at 6 months for all PROMs except for functional outcomes (SRS-Function and ODI) in which the improvement took place between 6 months and 2 years. In the 2- to 5-year follow-up period, no significant changes were seen in any PROMs. The percentage of patients reaching MCID from baseline at 5 years was: 75% for SRS-image, 45% for SRS-pain, 47.5% for SRS-function, 51.3% for SRS-mental, 42.5% for SRS-total and 15.4% for ODI. Patients reaching PASS at 5 years were: 88.1% for SRS-image, 81% for SRS-pain, 92.9% for SRS-function, 57.1% for SRS-mental, 88.1% for SRS-total, 92.7% for ODI and 69% for NRS pain. 11 minor and 4 major complications were identified. YAdIS surgery resulted in an early and significant improvement in PROMs, especially for self-image, significantly reaching MCID and PASS thresholds. These results were maintained during long-term (5-year) follow-up.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36607558
doi: 10.1007/s43390-023-00642-9
pii: 10.1007/s43390-023-00642-9
doi:
Types de publication
Multicenter Study
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
605-615Informations de copyright
© 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Scoliosis Research Society.
Références
Bridwell KH (1999) Surgical treatment of idiopathic adolescent scoliosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 24:2607–2616. https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-199912150-0000
doi: 10.1097/00007632-199912150-0000
pubmed: 10635524
Lim JL, Hey HWD, Kumar N et al (2020) A 10-year radiographic study comparing anterior versus posterior instrumented spinal fusion in patients with lenke type 5 adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 45:612–620. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000003331
doi: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000003331
pubmed: 31770332
Lonstein JE (2018) Selective thoracic fusion for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: long-term radiographic and functional outcomes. Spine Deform 6:669–675. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jspd.2018.04.008
doi: 10.1016/j.jspd.2018.04.008
pubmed: 30348342
Darnis A, Grobost P, Roussouly P (2021) Very long-term clinical and radiographic outcomes after posterior spinal fusion with pedicular screws for thoracic adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Spine Deform 9:441–449. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43390-020-00217-y9
doi: 10.1007/s43390-020-00217-y9
pubmed: 33030700
Kurra S, DeMercurio P, Lavelle WF (2022) Comparison of operative implications between adolescent and young adult idiopathic scoliosis patients from scoliosis research society mortality and morbidity database. Spine Deform. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43390-022-00515-7 . (Published online ahead of print, 2022 May 24)
doi: 10.1007/s43390-022-00515-7
pubmed: 35610542
Zhu F, Bao H, Yan P et al (2017) Comparison of surgical outcome of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis and young adult idiopathic scoliosis: a match-pair analysis of 160 patients. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 42:E1133–E1139. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000002106
doi: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000002106
pubmed: 28169957
Lavelle W, Kurra S, Hu X, Lieberman I (2020) Clinical outcomes of idiopathic scoliosis surgery: is there a difference between young adult patients and adolescent patients? Cureus. 12:e8118. https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.8118 . (Published 2020 May 14)
doi: 10.7759/cureus.8118
pubmed: 32542171
pmcid: 7292702
Chan CYW, Gani SMA, Chung WH, Chiu CK, Hasan MS, Kwan MKA (2021) Comparison between the perioperative outcomes of female adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) versus adult idiopathic scoliosis (AdIS) following posterior spinal fusion: a propensity score matching analysis involving 425 patients. Global Spine J. https://doi.org/10.1177/2192568221991510 . (Published online ahead of print, 2021 Mar 2)
doi: 10.1177/2192568221991510
pubmed: 33823628
pmcid: 9972263
Zuckerman SL, Cerpa M, Lenke LG et al (2021) Patient-reported outcomes after complex adult spinal deformity surgery: 5-year results of the scoli-risk-1 study. Global Spine J. https://doi.org/10.1177/2192568220988276 . (Published online ahead of print, 2021 Feb 9)
doi: 10.1177/2192568220988276
pubmed: 34409864
pmcid: 8165918
Crawford CH 3rd, Glassman SD, Bridwell KH, Berven SH, Carreon LY (2015) The minimum clinically important difference in SRS-22R total score, appearance, activity and pain domains after surgical treatment of adult spinal deformity. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 40:377–381. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000000761
doi: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000000761
pubmed: 25774463
Kelly MP, Lurie JD, Yanik EL et al (2019) Operative versus nonoperative treatment for adult symptomatic lumbar scoliosis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 101:338–352. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.18.00483
doi: 10.2106/JBJS.18.00483
pubmed: 30801373
Liu S, Diebo BG, Henry JK et al (2016) The benefit of nonoperative treatment for adult spinal deformity: identifying predictors for reaching a minimal clinically important difference. Spine J 16:210–218. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2015.10.043
doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2015.10.043
pubmed: 26523966
Copay AG, Glassman SD, Subach BR, Berven S, Schuler TC, Carreon LY (2008) Minimum clinically important difference in lumbar spine surgery patients: a choice of methods using the Oswestry disability index, medical outcomes study questionnaire Short Form 36, and pain scales. Spine J 8:968–974. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2007.11.006
doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2007.11.006
pubmed: 18201937
Yuksel S, Ayhan S, Nabiyev V et al (2019) Minimum clinically important difference of the health-related quality of life scales in adult spinal deformity calculated by latent class analysis: is it appropriate to use the same values for surgical and nonsurgical patients? Spine J 19:71–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2018.07.005
doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2018.07.005
pubmed: 30010046
Mannion AF, Loibl M, Bago J et al (2020) What level of symptoms are patients with adult spinal deformity prepared to live with? A cross-sectional analysis of the 12-month follow-up data from 1043 patients. Eur Spine J 29:1340–1352. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-020-06365-z
doi: 10.1007/s00586-020-06365-z
pubmed: 32189123
Schwab F, Blondel B, Chay E et al (2014) The comprehensive anatomical spinal osteotomy classification. Neurosurgery 74:112–120. https://doi.org/10.1227/NEU.0000000000000182o
doi: 10.1227/NEU.0000000000000182o
pubmed: 24356197
Faldini C, Barile F, Perna F et al (2021) Hi-PoAD technique for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis in adult: personal case series. Eur Spine J 30:3509–3516. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-021-06897-y
doi: 10.1007/s00586-021-06897-y
pubmed: 34142248
Chan A, Parent E, Wong J, Narvacan K, San C, Lou E (2020) Does image guidance decrease pedicle screw-related complications in surgical treatment of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: a systematic review update and meta-analysis. Eur Spine J 29:694–716. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-019-06219-3
doi: 10.1007/s00586-019-06219-3
pubmed: 31781863
Sultan AA, Berger RJ, Cantrell WA et al (2019) Predictors of extended length of hospital stay in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis patients undergoing posterior segmental instrumented fusion: an analysis of 407 surgeries performed at a large academic center. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 44:715–722. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000002919
doi: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000002919
pubmed: 30395090
Lehman RA Jr, Lenke LG, Keeler KA et al (2008) Operative treatment of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis with posterior pedicle screw-only constructs: minimum three-year follow-up of one hundred fourteen cases. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 33:1598–1604. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e318178872a
doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e318178872a
pubmed: 18552676
Helenius L, Diarbakerli E, Grauers A et al (2019) Back pain and quality of life after surgical treatment for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis at 5-year follow-up: comparison with healthy controls and patients with untreated idiopathic scoliosis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 101:1460–1466. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.18.01370
doi: 10.2106/JBJS.18.01370
pubmed: 31436653
Anari JB, Tatad A, Cahill PJ, Flynn JM, Harms Study Group (2020) The impact of posterior spinal fusion (PSF) on coronal balance in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS): a new classification and trends in the postoperative period. J Pediatr Orthop 40:e788–e793. https://doi.org/10.1097/BPO.0000000000001622
doi: 10.1097/BPO.0000000000001622
pubmed: 32658159
Zhou S, Xu F, Wang W, Zou D, Sun Z, Li W (2020) Age-based normal sagittal alignment in Chinese asymptomatic adults: establishment of the relationships between pelvic incidence and other parameters. Eur Spine J 29:396–404. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-019-06178-9
doi: 10.1007/s00586-019-06178-9
pubmed: 31664567
Pan C, Wang G, Li Y, Kuang L, Sun J, Lv G (2021) Predictive model of global tilt (GT) determined by individual thoracic kyphosis, lumbar lordosis and pelvic incidence in the human degenerative spine. Eur Spine J 30:3191–3199. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-021-06947-5
doi: 10.1007/s00586-021-06947-5
pubmed: 34331586
Hwang SW, Samdani AF, Marks M et al (2013) Five-year clinical and radiographic outcomes using pedicle screw only constructs in the treatment of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Eur Spine J 22:1292–1299. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-012-2625-0
doi: 10.1007/s00586-012-2625-0
pubmed: 23254863
Hicks GE, George SZ, Nevitt MA, Cauley JA, Vogt MT (2006) Measurement of lumbar lordosis: inter-rater reliability, minimum detectable change and longitudinal variation. J Spinal Disord Tech 19:501–506. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.bsd.0000210116.94273.ad
doi: 10.1097/01.bsd.0000210116.94273.ad
pubmed: 17021414
Hwang CJ, Baik JM, Cho JH, Yoon SJ, Lee DH, Lee CS (2020) Posterior correction of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis with high-density pedicle screw-only constructs: 5 years of follow-up. Yonsei Med J 61:323–330. https://doi.org/10.3349/ymj.2020.61.4.323
doi: 10.3349/ymj.2020.61.4.323
pubmed: 32233175
pmcid: 7105406
Blondel B, Lafage V, Schwab F, Farcy JP, Bollini G, Jouve JL (2012) Reciprocal sagittal alignment changes after posterior fusion in the setting of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Eur Spine J 21:1964–1971. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-012-2399-4
doi: 10.1007/s00586-012-2399-4
pubmed: 22722920
pmcid: 3463685
Kyrölä K, Kautiainen H, Pekkanen L, Mäkelä P, Kiviranta I, Häkkinen A (2019) Long-term clinical and radiographic outcomes and patient satisfaction after adult spinal deformity correction. Scand J Surg 108:343–351. https://doi.org/10.1177/1457496918812201
doi: 10.1177/1457496918812201
pubmed: 30449255
Terran J, McHugh BJ, Fischer CR et al (2014) Surgical treatment for adult spinal deformity: projected cost effectiveness at 5-year follow-up. Ochsner J 14:14–22
pubmed: 24688328
pmcid: 3962303
Rushton PR, Grevitt MP (2013) What is the effect of surgery on the quality of life of the adolescent with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis? A review and statistical analysis of the literature. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 38:786–794. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e3182837c95
doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3182837c95
pubmed: 24477054
Bastrom TP, Bartley C, Marks MC, Yaszay B, Newton PO, Harms Study Group (2015) Postoperative perfection: ceiling effects and lack of discrimination with both SRS-22 and -24 outcomes instruments in patients with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 40:E1323–E1329. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000001082
doi: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000001082
pubmed: 26230540
Bess S, Boachie-Adjei O, Burton D et al (2009) Pain and disability determine treatment modality for older patients with adult scoliosis, while deformity guides treatment for younger patients. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 34:2186–2190. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181b05146
doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181b05146
pubmed: 19752704
Wick JB, Le HV, Lafage R et al (2022) Assessment of adult spinal deformity complication timing and impact on 2-year outcomes using a comprehensive adult spinal deformity classification system. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 47:445–454. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000004289
doi: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000004289
pubmed: 34812199