Evaluation of changes in shoulder balance and prediction of final shoulder imbalance during growing-rod treatment for early-onset scoliosis

Background Obtaining and maintaining final shoulder balance after the entire treatment course is essential for early-onset scoliosis (EOS) patients. The relatively small number of growing-rod (GR) graduates who complete final fusion has resulted in an overall paucity of research on the GR treatment of EOS and a lack of research on the shoulder balance of EOS patients during GR treatment. Methods Twenty-four consecutive patients who underwent GR treatment until final fusion were included. Radiographic shoulder balance parameters, including the radiographic shoulder height (RSH), clavicle angle (CA), and T1 tilt angle (T1T), before and after each step of the entire treatment were measured. Shoulder balance changes from GR implantation to the last follow-up after final fusion were depicted and analysed. Demographic data, surgical-related factors, and radiographic parameters were analysed to identify risk factors for final shoulder imbalance. The shoulder balance of patients at different time points was further analysed to explore the potential effect of the series of GR treatment steps on shoulder balance. Results The RSH showed substantial improvement after GR implantation (P = 0.036), during the follow-up period after final fusion (P = 0.021) and throughout the entire treatment (P = 0.011). The trend of change in the CA was similar to that of the RSH, and the T1T improved immediately after GR implantation (P = 0.037). Further analysis indicated that patients with shoulder imbalance before final fusion showed significantly improved shoulder balance after fusion (P = 0.045), and their RSH values at early postfusion and the final follow-up did not show statistically significant differences from those in the prefusion shoulder balance group (P > 0.05). Early postfusion shoulder imbalance (odds ratio (OR): 19.500; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.777–213.949; P = 0.015) was identified as an independent risk factor for final shoulder imbalance. Conclusions Shoulder balance could be improved by GR implantation but often changes during the multistep lengthening process, and the final result is relatively unpredictable. Final fusion could further adjust the prefusion shoulder imbalance. Focusing on the prefusion shoulder balance of GR graduates and providing patients with early shoulder balance after fusion might be necessary.

Preoperative “Cervical Axis” Deviation Increases the Risk of Distal Adding-On Following Surgery in Lenke 1 and 2 Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis Patients

Study Design: Retrospective. Purpose: To evaluate the relationship between shoulder/ neck imbalance with distal adding-on phenomenon and to identify other risk factors in Lenke 1 and 2 (non-AR curves) adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) patients. Methods: 100 Lenke 1 and 2 AIS patients with lowest instrumented vertebra (LIV) cephalad to or at L1 were recruited. Medial shoulder/ neck balance was represented by T1-tilt and cervical axis (CA). Lateral shoulder balance was represented by clavicle angle (Cla-A) and radiographic shoulder height (RSH). Distal adding-on phenomenon was diagnosed when there was disc wedging below LIV of >5o at final follow-up. Predictive factors and odds ratio were derived using univariate and multivariate logistic regression analysis. Results: Mean age of this cohort was 15.9 ± 4.4 years. Mean follow-up duration was 30.9 ± 9.6 months. Distal adding-on phenomenon occurred in 19 patients (19.0%). Only Risser grade, preoperative CA and final follow-up lumbar Cobb angle were the independent factors. A positive preoperative CA deviation increased the odds of distal adding-on by 5.4 times (95% CI 1.34-21.51, P = 0.018). The mean immediate postoperative T1-tilt, CA, RSH and Cla-A were comparable between the group with distal adding-on and the group without. Conclusion: Distal adding-on phenomenon occurred in 19.0% of patients. Preoperative “Cervical Axis” was an important factor and it increased the risk of distal adding-on by 5.4 times. Other significant predictive factors were Risser grade and lumbar Cobb angle at final follow-up. Immediate postoperative shoulder or neck imbalance was not a significant factor for postoperative distal adding-on phenomenon.

An analysis of preoperative shoulder and neck balance and surgical outcome in 111 adolescent idiopathic scoliosis patients with two subtypes of Lenke 1 curves

OBJECTIVEThe incidence of postoperative shoulder imbalance following posterior spinal fusion (PSF) is still high in Lenke 1 curves despite following current treatment recommendations for upper instrumented vertebra (UIV) selection. The objective of this retrospective study was to identify differences in preoperative shoulder balance and to report the surgical outcome of two subtypes of Lenke 1 curves (flexible vs stiff) in patients with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS).METHODSThe authors grouped patients’ curves as Lenke 1–ve (flexible) when their preoperative proximal thoracic side bending (PTSB) Cobb angle was < 15° and as Lenke 1+ve (stiff) when the PTSB Cobb angle was 15°–24.9°. The authors hypothesized that these two subtypes had distinct preoperative and postoperative shoulder and neck balance following PSF using pedicle screw constructs.RESULTSFifty patients had Lenke 1 (flexible) curves and 61 had Lenke 1 (stiff) curves. The mean preoperative T1 tilt for patients with Lenke 1 (flexible) was −4.9° ± 5.3°, and for those with Lenke 1 (stiff) curves it was −1.0° ± 5.3° (p < 0.001). Mean cervical axis (CA) was −0.1° ± 3.2° for Lenke 1 (flexible) curves and 2.3° ± 3.5° for Lenke 1 (stiff) curves (p < 0.001). Preoperative radiographic shoulder height (RSH) and clavicle angle (Cla-A) were similar between the two curve subtypes. Following surgery, there were significant differences between the subtypes in terms of T1 tilt (p < 0.001), RSH (p = 0.014), and Cla-A (p = 0.031). Interestingly, 41.0% of patients with a Lenke 1 (stiff) curve had +ve T1 tilt compared to 2.0% in Lenke 1 (flexible) group. Moreover, 26.2% of patients with the Lenke 1 (stiff) curve had +ve RSH compared to 12.0% of those with Lenke 1 (flexible) curves. And, 24.6% of patients with Lenke 1 (stiff) had +ve Cla-A compared to 10.0% of those with Lenke 1 (flexible) curves.CONCLUSIONSLenke 1 (flexible) and Lenke 1 (stiff) curves had distinct preoperative T1 tilt and CA measurements. Following PSF, the authors noted +ve T1 tilt in 41% of patients with Lenke 1 (stiff) curves versus 2.0% in those with Lenke 1 (flexible) curves. The authors also noted a significant difference in postoperative RSH and Cla-A measurements.