Pre-operative parameters influencing vertebral body tethering outcomes: patient's characteristics play an important role in determining the outcomes at a minimum of 2 years post-op.
BMI
Deformity angular ratio
Growth modulation
Scoliosis
VBT
Vertebral body tethering
Journal
Spine deformity
ISSN: 2212-1358
Titre abrégé: Spine Deform
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101603979
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Nov 2023
Nov 2023
Historique:
received:
15
02
2023
accepted:
15
07
2023
pubmed:
2
8
2023
medline:
2
8
2023
entrez:
1
8
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The aim of this study is to determine preoperative predictors of good radiographic outcomes in VBT patients at a minimum 2-year follow-up. From a single-center dataset, we reviewed patients who underwent VBT from January 2014 to November 2018. Data analysis included age, gender, Risser grade and biometric data. Radiographically, maximum Cobb angle, C-DAR and apical vertebral and disc wedging were measured preop and at a minimum 2-year follow-up. Patients were divided into two cohorts following two different outcome measures: (1) vertebral growth modulation, those patients that growth modulated or corrected ≥ 5° and those who did not; and (2) Maximum Cobb angle at 2 years, < and ≥ 40°. Student T and Chi 79 patients were recruited. 26 patients (33%) did growth modulate their spine at 2-year follow-up. These patients were significantly younger, and more skeletally immature with less height (147 cm vs 155 cm; p < 0.0001), weight (38 kg vs. 45 kg; p = 0.0009) and BMI (17 vs 18.8; p = 0.0229) as those who did not. Multiple linear regression model with these variables resulted in a moderate correlation (r Curve severity determined by a preoperative C-DAR, preoperative Cobb angles and immediate postoperative Cobb angle are significantly related to curves < 40° at a minimum 2-year follow-up, while the potential to growth modulate the spine is more dependent on skeletal maturity, lower body weight and lower BMI. These patients' characteristics should be considered preoperatively.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37528248
doi: 10.1007/s43390-023-00739-1
pii: 10.1007/s43390-023-00739-1
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1389-1397Informations de copyright
© 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Scoliosis Research Society.
Références
Newton PO, Faro FD, Farnsworth CL et al (2005) Multilevel spinal growth modulation with an anterolateral flexible tether in an immature bovine model. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 30:2608–2613
doi: 10.1097/01.brs.0000188267.66847.bf
pubmed: 16319746
Samdani AF, Ames RJ, Kimball JS, Pahys JM, Grewal H, Pelletier GJ, Betz RR (2014) Anterior vertebral body tethering for idiopathic scoliosis: two-year results. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 39(20):1688–1693. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000000472
doi: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000000472
pubmed: 24921854
Newton PO, Kluck DG, Saito W, Yaszay B, Bartley CE, Bastrom TP (2018) Anterior spinal growth tethering for skeletally immature patients with scoliosis: a retrospective look two to four years postoperatively. J Bone Jt Surg Am 100(19):1691–1697. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.18.00287
doi: 10.2106/JBJS.18.00287
Crawford CH, Lenke LG (2010) Growth modulation by means of anterior tethering resulting in progressive correction of juvenile idiopathic scoliosis: a case report. J Bone Jt Surg Am 92:202–209
doi: 10.2106/JBJS.H.01728
Newton PO (2020) Spinal growth tethering: indications and limits. Ann Transl Med 8:27
doi: 10.21037/atm.2019.12.159
pubmed: 32055618
pmcid: 6995909
Pereira Duarte M, Aubin CE, Cobetto N, Roy-Beaudry M, Bellefleur C, Turgeon I, Labelle H, Guy A, Barchi S, Parent S (2022) 3D radiological outcomes and quality of life of patients with moderate idiopathic scoliosis treated with anterior vertebral growth modulation vs bracing: 2-year follow-up. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000004335
doi: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000004335
Alanay A, Yucekul A, Kindan P, Tanriover HH, Zulemyan T, Ergene G, Senay S, Ay B, Yavuz Y, Yilgor C (2019) Thoracoscopic vertebral body tethering for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: minimum 2 years results of patients reaching skeletal maturity. In: Presented at the annual meeting of Eurospine, Helsinki, 2019
Parent S, Alzakri A, Roy-Beaudry M, Turgeon I, Beauséjour M, Turcot O. (2019). Surgical complications of anterior vertebral body growth modulation for skeletally immature patients with idiopathic scoliosis. In: Presented at the annual meeting of Eurospine, Helsinki, 2019
Mishreky A, Parent S, Miyanji F, Smit K, Murphy J, Bowker R, Al Khatib N, El-Hawary R, Pediatric Spine Study Group (2022) Body mass index affects outcomes after vertebral body tethering surgery. Spine Deform. 10(3):563–571. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43390-021-00455-8
doi: 10.1007/s43390-021-00455-8
pubmed: 35013996
Zuckerman SL, Lenke LG, Cerpa M, Kelly MP, Yaszay B, Sponseller P, Erickson M, Garg S, Pahys J, Cahill P, Sides B, Gupta M, Fox Pediatric Spinal Deformity Study Group (2021) Interobserver and intraobserver reliability of determining the deformity angular ratio in severe pediatric deformity curves. Spine Deform 9(2):435–440. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43390-020-00239-6 . (Epub 2020 Nov 17)
doi: 10.1007/s43390-020-00239-6
pubmed: 33201497
Harrington PR (1962) Treatment of scoliosis. JBJS 44A:591–610
doi: 10.2106/00004623-196244040-00001
Wang XB, Lenke LG, Thuet E, Blanke K, Koester LA, Roth M (2016) Deformity angular ratio describes the severity of spinal deformity and predicts the risk of neurologic deficit in posterior vertebral column resection surgery. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 41(18):1447–1455. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000001547
doi: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000001547
pubmed: 26953665
CDC (2000) Centers for Disease Control and Prevention BMI-for-age charts, United States. https://www.cdc.gov/growthcharts/clinical_charts.htm . Accessed 8 Mar 2021
Modi HN, Suh SW, Song HR, Yang JH, Kim HJ, Modi CH (2008) Differential wedging of vertebral body and intervertebral disc in thoracic and lumbar spine in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis—a cross sectional study in 150 patients. Scoliosis 3:11. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-7161-3-11
doi: 10.1186/1748-7161-3-11
pubmed: 18700985
pmcid: 2527554
Hoernschemeyer DG, Boeyer ME, Robertson ME, Loftis CM, Worley JR, Tweedy NM, Gupta SU, Duren DL, Holzhauser CM, Ramachandran VM (2020) Anterior vertebral body tethering for adolescent scoliosis with growth remaining: a retrospective review of 2 to 5-year postoperative results. J Bone Jt Surg Am 102(13):1169–1176. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.19.00980
doi: 10.2106/JBJS.19.00980
Newton PO, Bartley CE, Bastrom TP et al (2020) Anterior spinal growth modulation in skeletally immature patients with idiopathic scoliosis. J Bone Jt Surg 102:769–777. https://doi.org/10.2106/jbjs.19.01176
doi: 10.2106/jbjs.19.01176
Weinstein SL (1986) Idiopathic scoliosis. Natural history. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 11(8):780–783. https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-198610000-00006
doi: 10.1097/00007632-198610000-00006
pubmed: 3810292
Stokes IAF (2002) Mechanical effects on skeletal growth. J Musculoskelet Neuronal Interact 2:277–280
pubmed: 15758453
Lee BH, Hyun SJ, Han S, Jeon SI, Kim KJ, Jahng TA, Kim HJ (2018) Total deformity angular ratio as a risk factor for complications after posterior vertebral column resection surgery. J Korean Neurosurg Soc 61(6):723–730. https://doi.org/10.3340/jkns.2018.0125
doi: 10.3340/jkns.2018.0125
pubmed: 30396245
pmcid: 6280056
Lewis ND, Keshen SG, Lenke LG, Zywiel MG, Skaggs DL, Dear TE, Strantzas S, Lewis SJ (2015) The deformity angular ratio: does it correlate with high-risk cases for potential spinal cord monitoring alerts in pediatric 3-column thoracic spinal deformity corrective surgery? Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 40(15):E879–E885. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000000984
doi: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000000984
pubmed: 26222664
Parent S, Labelle H, Skalli W, de Guise J (2004) Vertebral wedging characteristic changes in scoliotic spines. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 29(20):E455–E462. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.brs.0000142430.65463.3a
doi: 10.1097/01.brs.0000142430.65463.3a
pubmed: 15480123
Nault ML, Mac-Thiong JM, Roy-Beaudry M, deGuise J, Labelle H, Parent S (2013) Three-dimensional spine parameters can differentiate between progressive and nonprogressive patients with AIS at the initial visit: a retrospective analysis. J Pediatr Orthop 33(6):618–623. https://doi.org/10.1097/BPO.0b013e318292462a
doi: 10.1097/BPO.0b013e318292462a
pubmed: 23774203
Taylor TK, Ghosh P, Bushell GR (1981) The contribution of the intervertebral disk to the scoliotic deformity. Clin Orthop 156:79–90
doi: 10.1097/00003086-198105000-00010
Braun JT, Ogilvie JW, Akyuz E, Brodke DS, Bachus KN, Stefko RM (2003) Experimental scoliosis in an immature goat model: a method that creates idiopathic-type deformity with minimal violation of the spinal elements along the curve. Spine 28:2198–2203
doi: 10.1097/01.BRS.0000085095.37311.46
pubmed: 14520031
Perdriolle R, Becchetti S, Vidal J, Lopez P (1993) Mechanical process and growth cartilages. Essential factors in the progression of scoliosis. Spine 18:343–349
doi: 10.1097/00007632-199303000-00007
pubmed: 8475435
Xiong B, Sevastik JA, Hedlund R, Sevastik B (1994) Radiographic changes at the coronal plane in early scoliosis. Spine 19:159–164
doi: 10.1097/00007632-199401001-00008
pubmed: 8153824
Reem J, Carney J, Stanley M, Cassidy J (2009) Risser sign inter-rater and intra-rater agreement: is the Risser sign reliable? Skeletal Radiol 38(4):371–375. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00256-008-0603-8
doi: 10.1007/s00256-008-0603-8
pubmed: 19002685