These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Selecting the "Touched Vertebra" as the Lowest Instrumented Vertebra in Patients with Lenke Type-1 and 2 Curves: Radiographic Results After a Minimum 5-Year Follow-up.
    Author: Beauchamp EC, Lenke LG, Cerpa M, Newton PO, Kelly MP, Blanke KM, Harms Study Group Investigators.
    Journal: J Bone Joint Surg Am; 2020 Nov 18; 102(22):1966-1973. PubMed ID: 32804885.
    Abstract:
    BACKGROUND: The selection of the lowest instrumented vertebra (LIV) in patients with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) is still controversial. Although multiple radiographic methods have been proposed, there is no universally accepted guideline for appropriate selection of the LIV. We developed a simple and reproducible method for selection of the LIV in patients with Lenke type-1 (main thoracic) and 2 (double thoracic) curves and investigated its effectiveness in producing optimal positioning of the LIV at 5 years of follow-up. METHODS: The radiographs for 299 patients with Lenke type-1 or 2 AIS curves that were included in a multicenter database were evaluated after a minimum duration of follow-up of 5 years. The "touched vertebra" (TV) was selected on preoperative radiographs by 2 independent examiners. The LIV on postoperative radiographs was compared with the preoperative TV. The final LIV position in relation to the center sacral vertical line (CSVL) was assessed. The CSVL-LIV distance and coronal balance in patients who had fusion to the TV were compared with those in patients who had fusion cephalad and caudad to the TV. The sagittal plane was also reviewed. RESULTS: In 86.6% of patients, the LIV was selected at or immediately adjacent to the TV. Among patients with an "A" lumbar modifier, those who had fusion cephalad to the TV had a significantly greater CSVL-LIV distance than those who had fusion to the TV (p = 0.006) or caudad to the TV (p = 0.002). In the groups with "B" (p = 0.424) and "C" (p = 0.326) lumbar modifiers, there were no differences among the TV groups. CONCLUSIONS: We recommend the TV rule as a third modifier in the Lenke AIS classification system. Selecting the TV as the LIV in patients with Lenke type-1 and 2 curves provides acceptable positioning of the LIV at long-term follow-up. The position of the LIV was not different when fusion was performed caudad to the TV but came at the expense of fewer motion segments. Patients with lumbar modifier "A" who had fusion cephalad to the TV had greater translation of the LIV, putting these patients at risk for poor long-term outcomes. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]