Curve Patterns Deserve Attention when Determining the Optimal Distal Fusion Level in Correction Surgery for Scheuermann Kyphosis.
Weiguo Zhu,Xu Sun,Wei Pan,Huang Yan,Zhen Liu,Yong Qiu,Zezhang Zhu
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2019.04.007
IF: 4.297
2019-01-01
The Spine Journal
Abstract:BACKGROUND CONTEXT:The surgical strategy to decide distal fusion level for Scheuermann kyphosis (SK) is controversial. Some spinal surgeons advocate that instrumentation should end at the first lordotic vertebra (FLV), whereas others recommend extending spinal fusion to the sagittal stable vertebra (SSV). Scheuermann kyphosis has two curve patterns: Scheuermann thoracic kyphosis (STK), with the curve apex above or at T10; and Scheuermann thoracolumbar kyphosis (STLK), with the curve apex below T10. To our knowledge, curve patterns have not been taken into consideration when determining the distal fusion level.PURPOSE:This study aims to analyze the clinical and radiographic outcomes, including the distal junctional problems, in pediatric patients with STK and STLK who underwent fusion with different distal fusion levels.STUDY DESIGN:This is a retrospective, single-center, institutional review board-approved study.PATIENT SAMPLE:A total of 45 consecutive pediatric patients with STK or STLK.OUTCOME MEASURES:The following parameters were evaluated: global kyphosis (GK), deformity angular ratio (DAR), correction rate of GK and DAR, thoracolumbar kyphosis (TLK), lumbar lordosis (LL), sagittal vertical axis (SVA), T1 pelvic angle (TPA), the distance from the center of the lower instrumented vertebra (LIV) to the posterior sacral vertical line, pelvic incidence (PI), pelvic tilt (PT), sacral slope (SS), and distal junctional kyphosis (DJK).METHODS:This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 81171672), Nanjing Clinical Medical Center, and Jiangsu Provincial Key Medical Center. Patients with STK were fused to SSV at the distal level (Group STK), whereas patients with STLK were fused to FLV (Group STLK). Whole spine x-rays obtained before surgery, immediately after operation, and at the latest follow-up were evaluated. The radiographic and clinical data were compared between Groups STK and STLK. All patients had a minimum of 2 years of follow-up.RESULTS:Before surgery, Groups STK and STLK were comparable in terms of age, gender, body mass index, fusion levels, follow-up time, some radiographic parameters and the 22-item Scoliosis Research Society questionnaire (SRS-22) evaluation. DAR and TLK were significantly smaller, whereas PI was significantly greater, in Group STK than those in Group STLK. Despite different distal fusion strategies, STK and STLK were corrected to an equivalent extent, with similar GK, correction rate, LL, SVA, TPA, PT, and SS immediately after operation and at the final follow-up. The DAR and TLK retained were smaller, whereas the PI retained was greater, in Group STK than STLK after surgery. Distal junctional kyphosis complications were found in five patients with STK curve type. In Group STK, patients with DJK were found to have significantly larger preoperative GK (87.5±7.0 vs. 77.5±9.0, p=.024), correction rate of GK (62.9±10.2% vs. 51.3±8.5%, p=.021), and correction rate of DAR (55.9±4.5% vs. 36.6±13.7%, p=.011) than those without DJK. Pre- and postoperative SRS-22 assessments did not show any significant difference between Groups STK and STLK or between patients with and without DJK.CONCLUSIONS:Curve patterns should be taken into attention when determining the optimal distal fusion level in correction surgery for SK. For patients with STLK, relatively shorter fusion stopping at FLV is enough to correct SK with the preservation of more lumbar motility and less development of DJK. For patients with STK, we suggest extending fusion to the SSV, which could restrict more distal junctional problems than fusion to the FLV. Large GK and correction degree might be the associated factors of developing DJK in STK patients.