Abstract:Objective:To compare the technique between concave distraction and convex resection in the treatment of congenital cervicothoracic scoliosis and evaluate its curative effect.Methods:Data of congenital cervicothoracic scoliosis patients from January 2010 to January 2020 were collected, among which 5 were males and 3 were females. The patients' age was 12.5±4.5 years old (range 6-20 years old). One case had C 7 wedged vertebra, 4 cases had T 1 hemivertebra and unbalanced vertebra, 2 cases had T 2 hemivertebra and 1 case had fused facet joint and wedged lamina in T 1. All patients had different degrees of vertebra fusion. Convex resection technique (one stage anterior and posterior combined hemivertebrae resection and annular osteotomy) was used to treat 4 cases before 2015; Concave distraction technique (A combination of anterior and posterior release, intervertebral space and facet space distraction, cage placed and fusion) was used to treat 4 cases after 2015 and 2 of them had 2 segments distraction. Perioperative neurological, vascular and wound related complications were recorded. The main parameters were structure Cobb angle, cephalic and caudal compensatory Cobb angle, mandibular incline, neck tilt, shoulder balance and head shift were measured pre-operation, post-operation and at the last follow-up. Results:All patients' surgeries were completed successfully. In convex resection group, the duration of surgery was 201±100 min (range 113-300 min) per vertebra, the estimated blood loss was 294±153 ml (range 100-450 ml) per vertebra, the hospital stay was 14±3 d (range 11-18 d) and follow up time was 51±11 months (range 36-60 months). In concave distraction group, the duration of surgery was 117±14 min (range 101-129 min) per vertebra, the estimated blood loss was 119±36 ml (range 85-167 ml) per vertebra, hospital stay was 17±3 d (range 14-20 d) and follow up time was 28±21 months (range 12-60 months). Convex resection group had longer operation time and more blood loss per vertebra than concave distraction group. In convex resection group, structural Cobb angle was 45.1°±21.0° pre-operation and 22.7°±15.3° post-operation, which was corrected significantly ( Z=6.53, P=0.038). The correction rate was 54.8%±30.9%. Cephalic compensatory Cobb angle was 22.1°±8.2° pre-operation and 8.2°±5.8° post-operation, which was corrected significantly ( F=6.01, P=0.049). The correction rate was 66.8%±15.1%. Mandible incline was 7.8°±3.1° pre-operation and 3.5°±1.5° post-operation, which was corrected significantly ( F=8.02, P=0.018). The correction rate was 51.0%±29.7%. In concave distraction group, structural Cobb angle was 32.2°±27.2° pre-operation and 16.3°±16.7° post-operation, which was corrected significantly ( F=7.43, P=0.024) . The correction rate was 59.0%±24.7%. Caudal compensatory Cobb angle was 18.9°(17.2°, 32.1°) pre-operation and 9.5°±10.3° post-operation, which was corrected significantly ( Z=6.00, P=0.049). The correction rate was 64.0%±24.1%. Clavicle angle was 3.9°±2.3° pre-operation and 0.3°±0.4° post-operation, which was corrected significantly ( F=1.75, P=0.040). The correction rate was 97.0% (48.5%, 99.8%). There was no significant difference in the correction rate of all radiographic parameters between the two groups. At the last follow-up, the patients' appearance of head, neck and shoulder were improved compared with those before surgery. In convex resection group, 2 patients showed nerve root stimulation symptoms postoperatively on convex side. One patient developed C 5 nerve root palsy which weakened deltoid muscle and the other patients presented with reduced triceps muscle strength. In concave distraction group, one patient developed C 5 nerve root palsy on convex side. All these symptoms recovered by conservative treatment 3 months after operation. Conclusion:It is safe and effective to treat congenital cervicothoracic scoliosis with convex resection technique and concave distraction technique. The concave distraction technique has the advantages of more safety, less operating time, less blood loss and easier to perform and has a wider application prospect.

Comparison of Internal Distraction with Traditional Anterior Release and Posterior Correction in the Treatment of Severe and Rigid Scoliosis

Treatment of Degenerative Lumbar Scoliosis with Selective Segmental Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion and Posterior Spinal Fusion

MEDIUM-TERM EFFECTIVENESS OF ANTERIOR RELEASE INTERNAL DISTRACTION FOR SEVERE AND RIGID SCOLIOSIS

Anterior Release Internal Distraction and Posterior Spinal Fusion for Severe and Rigid Scoliosis

The Impact of Posterior Temporary Internal Distraction on Stepwise Corrective Surgery for Extremely Severe and Rigid Scoliosis Greater Than 130°

A Novel Posterior Multiple Screws Distraction Reducer System Versus Anterior Release, Posterior Internal Distraction, and Subsequent Spinal Fusion for Severe Scoliosis

Comparison of Anterior and Posterior Vertebral Column Resection Versus Anterior Release with Posterior Internal Distraction for Severe and Rigid Scoliosis

Outcome and complications of intermittent distracting rod for correction of severe scoliosis in young children

Evaluation and Comparation of a Novel Surgical Technique and Hemivertebra Resection to the Correction of Congenital Cervical Scoliosis in Lower Cervical and Cervicothoracic Spine

Surgical Treatment of Idiopathic Thoracolumber Scoliosis with Anterior Versus Posterior Instrumentation.

The Comparison of Posterior Intervertebral Release Combined with Posterior Column Osteotomy and Posterior Column Osteotomy Alone for the Treatment of Moderate‐to‐Severe Rigid Scoliosis: A Prospective Controlled Study

Comparison of techniques between concave distraction or convex resection in the treatment of congenital cervicothoracic scoliosis

Comparison of Thoracoscopic Anterior Release Combined With Posterior Spinal Fusion Versus Posterior-only Approach With an All-pedicle Screw Construct in the Treatment of Rigid Thoracic Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis.

Comparison of anterior/posterior vertebral column resection versus anterior/posterior spinal fusion for severe and rigid scoliosis.

The application of distraction on the concave side in the treatment of congenital cervical scoliosis

Anterior or Posterior Release for Severe Rigid Scoliosis: Which is Safer and More Effective?

Therapeutic effects of long-segment and short-segment decompression fusion internal fixation on degenerative lumbar scoliosis

Anterior spinal relaxation followed posterior instrumentation for the treatment of idiopathic scoliosis

Comparison of the Clinical Outcome for Adult Idiopathic Scoliosis Treated by Posterior Spinal Instrumentation with or Without Halo-femoral Traction after Anterior Release

Comparative analysis between shape memory alloy-based correction and traditional correction technique in pedicle screws constructs for treating severe scoliosis

Curative effect of three internal fixation instruments to correct idiopathic scoliosis