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: Trunk Range of Motion and Patient Outcomes After Anterior Vertebral Body Tethering Versus Posterior Spinal Fusion: Comparison Using Computerized 3D Motion Capture Technology.
    Author: Pahys JM, Samdani AF, Hwang SW, Warshauer S, Gaughan JP, Chafetz RS.
    Journal: J Bone Joint Surg Am; 2022 Sep 07; 104(17):1563-1572. PubMed ID: 35766407.
    Abstract:
    BACKGROUND: Anterior vertebral body tethering (AVBT) for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) is postulated to preserve motion compared with traditional posterior spinal fusion (PSF), but few studies exist to date. We used a validated computerized 3D model to compare trunk motion between patients treated with PSF and AVBT, and analyzed trunk motion in relation to the lowest instrumented vertebra (LIV). METHODS: This was a single-center retrospective review of a consecutive series of skeletally immature patients with AIS who underwent motion analysis prior to PSF (n = 47) or AVBT (n = 65) and 2 years postoperatively. Patients were divided into 4 groups on the basis of the LIV (≤L1, L2, L3, L4). Computerized 3D kinematic evaluations included thoracic and lumbar flexion, extension, side-bending, and rotation. Patient outcomes were assessed using the Scoliosis Research Society (SRS)-22 questionnaire. RESULTS: The LIV was ≤L1 in 48 patients treated with AVBT and 23 treated with PSF, L2 in 4 AVBT and 8 PSF patients, L3 in 10 AVBT and 8 PSF patients, and L4 in 3 AVBT and 8 PSF patients. PSF patients had a significant loss of motion in all 4 directions at 2 years postoperatively (e.g., flexion loss was 11° for ≤L1 to 30° for L4; p < 0.001). This equated to a 7° loss of trunk flexion per additional LIV level included in the fusion. AVBT patients only demonstrated loss of flexion and side-bending at 2 years postoperatively (e.g., flexion loss of 11° for L1 to 17° for L4; p < 0.001). Preoperative curve size and flexibility did not have any significant impact on differences in trunk motion between AVBT and PSF. SRS-22 scores were predominantly similar for AVBT versus PSF preoperatively and at 2 years postoperatively. CONCLUSIONS: Patients treated with AVBT experienced predominantly less motion loss compared with PSF patients at 2 years postoperatively. Patients treated with PSF demonstrated loss of motion in all planes that increased with each additional LIV from ≤L1 to L4, with 7° loss of flexion per additional LIV. However, the differences in total trunk motions were relatively modest for PSF and AVBT with an LIV of ≤L1. Preoperative curve magnitude and flexibility had no significant impact on trunk motion in either group. SRS-22 scores were similar for both groups at 2 years postoperatively. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level III . See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]