Clinical outcomes of the traditional dual growing rod technique combined with apical pedicle screws in the treatment of early-onset scoliosis: preliminary results from a single center

Abstract

OBJECTIVE Limited control of an apical deformity is a major disadvantage in the traditional dual growing rod (TDGR) technique. Previous literature has reported the results of apical pedicle screw placement (APS) as an apical control technique in patients with early-onset scoliosis (EOS). However, the clinical outcomes, indications, and complications of the TDGR technique combined with APSs have not been well described. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the preliminary clinical outcomes of the TDGR technique combined with APSs in EOS patients. METHODS Clinical data of 12 patients with EOS who were treated with the TDGR technique combined with APSs at the index surgery at the authors’ center from January 2010 to January 2020, with a minimum 2-year follow-up, were retrospectively reviewed. Indications for the use of APSs included 1) no vertebral segmentation failure, fused ribs, or multiple hemivertebrae at the apex; 2) at least 2 normal discs around the apex; and 3) proper development of apical pedicles on the convex side. Etiology, age at index surgery, number of lengthening procedures, follow-up duration, and complications were recorded. Radiographic measurements included Cobb angle, apical vertebral translation (AVT), apical vertebral rotation (AVR), thoracic kyphosis, lumbar lordosis, spine height, and space available for the lung (SAL). RESULTS The mean follow-up period was 4.0 ± 1.4 years, with a mean of 4.8 lengthening procedures per patient. The mean Cobb angle improved from 61.7° ± 10.4° to 19.9° ± 9.0° after the index surgery (19.6° ± 9.4° at the latest follow-up). The mean postindex AVT decreased to 16.8 ± 8.9 mm from a preindex AVT of 56.3 ± 9.7 mm and further improved to 13.6 ± 10.0 mm at the latest follow-up. The mean annual increases in T1–12 and T1–S1 height were 9.0 ± 4.7 mm and 13.9 ± 6.5 mm, respectively. The SAL improved from 0.91 to 1.04 at the latest follow-up. AVR improved significantly after the index surgery (p = 0.013), while minor deterioration was observed after repeat lengthening procedures. Five complications (2 implant related and 3 alignment related) occurred in 4 patients. CONCLUSIONS For EOS patients with good flexibility (without segmentation failure or multiple hemivertebrae at the apex), the TDGR technique combined with APSs can improve primary curve correction, maintain good correction results, and allow continuous spine growth, which may reduce the risks of complications during lengthening treatment. More multicenter prospective studies with larger samples are needed to further validate the findings of this study.