PURPOSE: This study compared cervical supine side-bending (CSSB) and cervical supine traction (CST) radiographs to assess the flexibility and predict the correctability of the proximal thoracic (PT) curve for patients with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) classified as Lenke 1 and 2.
OVERVIEW OF LITERATURE: Knowledge of the flexibility of the PT curve is crucial in the management of patients with AIS. There are no reports comparing CSSB and CST radiographs to assess this parameter.
METHODS: Thirty patients with Lenke 1 and 2 AIS scheduled for posterior spinal fusion surgery were recruited. A standing whole spine radiography and physician-supervised CSSB and CST radiographies were performed. Patient demographic and radiological parameters were recorded, including age, gender, weight, height, body mass index, PT angle, main thoracic angle, CSSB PT angle, CST PT angle, and postoperative PT angle. From the data collected, the curve flexibility and curve correction index were calculated and compared.
RESULTS: CSSB had a significantly (p <0.05) smaller PT angle (16.6°±10.4°) in comparison to CST (23.7°±10.7°). CSSB had significantly (p <0.05) greater flexibility (44.2%±19.7%) in comparison to CST (19.5%±18.1%). The CSSB correction index (1.2±0.9) was significantly closer to 1 in comparison to the CST correction index (4.4±5.3). There was no difference (p =0.72) between the CSSB PT angle (16.6°±10.4°) and the postoperative PT angle (16.1°±7.5°). However, the CST PT angle (23.7°±10.7°) was significantly (p <0.05) larger than the postoperative PT angle (16.1°±7.5°).
CONCLUSIONS: CSSB radiographs were better for demonstrating PT flexibility and more accurately predicted correctability in comparison to the CST radiographs.
METHODS: Six porcine lumbar spines (L2-L5) were separated into 12 functional spine units. Bilateral total facetectomies and interlaminar decompression were performed for all specimens. Non-destructive loading to assess stiffness in lateral bending, flexion and extension as well as axial rotation was performed using a universal material testing machine.
RESULTS: PS and CS constructs were significantly stiffer than the intact spine except in axial rotation. Using the normalized ratio to the intact spine, there is no significant difference between the stiffness of PS and CS: flexion (1.41 ± 0.27, 1.55 ± 0.32), extension (1.98 ± 0.49, 2.25 ± 0.44), right lateral flexion (1.93 ± 0.57, 1.55 ± 0.30), left lateral flexion (2.00 ± 0.73, 2.16 ± 0.20), right axial rotation (0.99 ± 0.21, 0.83 ± 0.26) and left axial rotation (0.96 ± 0.22, 0.92 ± 0.25).
CONCLUSION: The CS-rod TLIF construct provided comparable construct stiffness to a traditional PS-rod TLIF construct in a 'standardized' porcine lumbar spine model.
OBJECTIVE: This study looked into whether crossbar can reliably measure Upper Instrumend Vertebra (UIV) tilt angle intraoperatively and accurately predict the UIV tilt angle postoperatively and at final follow-up.
SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Postoperative shoulder imbalance is a common cause of poor cosmetic appearance leading to patient dissatisfaction. There were no reports describing the technique or method in measuring the UIV tilt angle intraoperatively. Therefore, this study was designed to look into the reliability and accuracy of the usage of intraoperative crossbar in measuring the UIV tilt angle intraoperatively.
METHODS: Lenke 1 and 2 Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis patients who underwent instrumented Posterior Spinal Fusion using pedicle screw constructs with minimum follow-up of 24 months were recruited for this study. After surgical correction, intraoperative UIV tilt angle was measured using a crossbar. Immediate postoperative and final follow up UIV tilt angle was measured on the standing anteroposterior radiographs.
RESULTS: A total of 100 patients were included into this study. The reliability of the intraoperative crossbar to measure the optimal UIV tilt angle intraoperatively was determined by repeated measurements by assessors and measurement by different assessors. We found that the intra observer and inter observer reliability was very good with intraclass correlation coefficient values of >0.9. The accuracy of the intraoperative crossbar to measure the optimal UIV tilt angle intraoperatively was determined by comparing this measurement with the postoperative UIV tilt angle. We found that there was no significant difference (P>0.05) between intraoperative, immediate postoperative, and follow-up UIV tilt angle.
CONCLUSIONS: The crossbar can be used to measure the intraoperative UIV tilt angle consistently and was able to predict the postoperative UIV tilt angle. It was a cheap, simple, reliable, and accurate instrument to measure the intraoperative UIV tilt angle.