Authors: Pooria Hosseini MD MSc, Jeff Pawelek BS, Stacie Nguyen MPH, George H. Thompson MD, Suken A....
-
Upload
miranda-cummings -
Category
Documents
-
view
228 -
download
0
description
Transcript of Authors: Pooria Hosseini MD MSc, Jeff Pawelek BS, Stacie Nguyen MPH, George H. Thompson MD, Suken A....
Authors: Pooria Hosseini MD MSc, Jeff Pawelek BS, Stacie Nguyen MPH, George H. Thompson MD, Suken A. Shah MD, John M. Flynn MD, John P. Dormans MD,
Behrooz A. Akbarnia MD, GSSG
Rod Fracture and Lengthening Intervals in Traditional Growing Rods: Is There a
Relationship?
ICEOS 2015 , 9TH INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS ON EARLY ONSET SCOLIOSIS (ICEOS), Boston, MA, USA
Pooria Hosseini None
Jeff Pawelek None
Stacie Nguyen None
George H. Thompson NuSpine Medical Technologies (B,C), Lippincott (C), Orthpediatrics (B), SpineForm (B).
Suken A. Shah Globus (A), Depuy, Artex, Depuy (C),
John M. Flynn Biomet (C), Wolter Kluwer Health (C).
John P. Dormans Elsevier (C), Mosby (C), Brooke’s Publishing (C)
Behrooz A. Akbarnia Depuy Spine (C), Nuvasive (A,B, C), K2M (B), Ellipse (A,B), Nocimed (A)
GSSG None
Disclosures A: Stock B: ConsultancyC: Royalties/Financial SupportD: Grants
• Generally, traditional GR surgery in EOS requires periodic rod lengthening every 6 months until skeletal maturity
• Lengthening intervals vary between patients due to many reasons including complications
• FEA studies have shown that shorter lengthening intervals (more frequent lengthenings) results in lower rod fracture1.
1- Agarwal A., A. A., Jayaswal A., Goel V. (2014). "Smaller Interval Distractions May Reduce Chances of Growth Rod Breakage Without Impending Desired Spinal Growth: A Finite Element Study " Spine Deformity 2: 430-436.
Introduction
Retrospective study of multicenter EOS database Inclusion criteria
a) dual growing rod surgery b) minimum 2-year follow-up c) minimum 2 lengthenings d) Only patients with revision surgery related to rod
fracture were included
Only patients with revision surgery related to rod fracture were included.
Methods
56
82
Total 138 RFNRF
Methodology
• Lengthening intervals a) RF: only up to the first fracture b) NRF: all intervals
• Demographics• Construct details• Radiographic parameters
Data collection
Parameter NRF RF P value
Mean pre-op age 7.3 yrs 5.7 yrs < 0.001
Etiologies NM (39%) Syn (39.3%) > 0.05
Last lengthening interval prior to rod # Vs. mean interval in NRF
8.6 m 9.2 m 0.610
Mean pre-op major curve size
72.9° 75.5° 0.279
Max kyphosis 51.9° 51.9° 0.619
% curve correction post surgery
45.9% 43.9% 0.431
Rod diameter 4.8 mm 4.6 mm 0.262
Rod type NA SS Ti 0.00449.2 % 38 %
ResultsNM: NeuromascularSyn: SyndromicNA: Not applicableSS: Stainless steelTi: titanium
INTERVALS (months)
1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th
NRF 8 8.64 9.23 9.77 9 8.15 11.3 9.79 6.74 7.59 -
RF 8.16 8.26 8.06 7.88 9.06 8.39 10 6.46 6.77 9.33 14.3
P > 0.05
Results
• Lengthening intervals were not statistically different in RF and NRF groups. Hence, shorter lengthening intervals (more frequent lengthenings) should not benefit the traditional dual growing rods in terms of rod fracture prevention.
• Patients who had rod fracture were younger at the time of index surgery and had more SS rods.
Conclusion
Lengthening intervals did not appear to be a risk factor for the incidence of the rod fracture in the traditional dual growing rods.
Significance
• MCGR cases have a wider range of lengthening intervals (1-9 m) vs. TGR cases with min of about 5 m and longer
• To study the real effects of lengthening intervals on the rod fracture we recommend the review of the effects of lengthening intervals on rod fracture in MCGR constructs
Future studies
Thank you