Dual Growing Rods and the Apical Control Technique for Treating Congenital Early-Onset Scoliosis

Abstract

Background: Congenital early-onset scoliosis (CEOS) is characterized by a spectrum of vertebral anomalies, including formation failures and segmentation failures at the apex segment, which makes CEOS different from other etiologies of early-onset scoliosis. To date, studies on patients who have graduated from CEOS treatment using traditional dual growing rods (TDGR) have been scarce, and the preliminary results of TDGR with or without the apical control technique (ACT) have varied. We therefore compared the final outcomes of patients with CEOS who graduated from TDGR with or without the ACT. Methods: A retrospective study of patients with CEOS who had graduated from TDGR treatment performed from 2007 to 2020 was conducted. Graduation included final fusion or observation after reaching skeletal maturity. Patients were divided into the ACT-TDGR group (apical vertebrectomy and/or hemivertebrectomy with short fusion and TDGR) and the TDGR-only group. Demographic characteristics, radiographic data, patient-reported clinical outcomes, pulmonary function, and complications were analyzed. Results: A total of 41 patients with CEOS were enrolled: 13 in the ACT-TDGR group and 28 in the TDGR-only group. The lengthening intervals were longer in the ACT-TDGR group (mean [and standard deviation], 1.26 ± 0.66 years) than in the TDGR-only group (0.80 ± 0.27 years). The preoperative main curve was larger in the ACT-TDGR group (80.53° ± 19.50°) than in the TDGR-only group (64.11° ± 17.50°). The residual curve was comparable between groups (26.31° ± 12.82° in the ACT-TDGR group compared with 27.76° ± 15.0° in the TDGR group) at the latest follow-up. The changes in apical vertebral rotation and thoracic rotation were significantly larger in the ACT-TDGR group. Patients had comparable T1-12 and T1-S1 heights, pulmonary function, and 22-item Scoliosis Research Society (SRS-22) scores at the latest follow-up. The mean number of mechanical-related complications per patient was lower in the ACT-TDGR group (0.77 ± 0.73) than in the TDGR-only group (1.54 ± 1.43). Seventeen patients underwent final fusion. Conclusions: In this small-scale study, we observed that both ACT-TDGR and TDGR-only could correct the deformity while allowing for spinal growth in patients with CEOS. ACT-TDGR yielded better correction in severe cases and did not have a deleterious effect on spinal height. A large number of cases will be needed to validate the clinical value of the ACT. Level of Evidence: Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.