This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Letters to the Editor: Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when Letters to the Editor are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow E-mail this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My File Cabinet
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowReprints and Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Osebold, W. R.
Right arrow Articles by Moe, J. H.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Osebold, W. R.
Right arrow Articles by Moe, J. H.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Technorati  
What's this?

The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Vol 64, Issue 6 841-856, Copyright © 1982 by Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Inc


JOURNAL CONTENTS

Surgical treatment of paralytic scoliosis associated with myelomeningocele

WR Osebold, JK Mayfield, RB Winter and JH Moe

The spines of forty patients with myelomeningocele and paralytic scoliosis were surgically stabilized at the Twin Cities Scoliosis Center between 1960 and 1979. Treatment with posterior spine fusion and Harrington instrumentation extending to the sacrum, combined with anterior fusion using either Dwyer or Zielke instrumentation, gave the best results, correcting scoliosis by an average of 45 degrees (comparing preoperative values with those at the last visit), lordosis by an average of 20 degrees, torso decompensation by an average of 5.7 centimeters, and pelvic obliquity by an average of 7 degrees. This combined fusion method reduced the rate of pseudarthrosis to 23 per cent (compared with 46 per cent when only posterior fusion and instrumentation were used). Prophylactic antibodies (selected on the basis of preoperative cultures of urine) reduced the infection rate to 8 per cent. Posterior fusion or anterior fusion alone was inadequate, even with instrumentation. Early mobilization wearing a bivalved polypropylene body jacket minimized osteoporosis, pressure sores, and social isolation. Unsolved technical problems remain, however, especially in relation to obtaining fusion across the lumbosacral joint.
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
JBJSHome page
R. F. McLain, J. E. Fleming, C. A. Boehm, and G. F. Muschler
Aspiration of Osteoprogenitor Cells for Augmenting Spinal Fusion: Comparison of Progenitor Cell Concentrations from the Vertebral Body and Iliac Crest
J. Bone Joint Surg. Am., December 1, 2005; 87(12): 2655 - 2661.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
J Child NeurolHome page
G. S. Liptak, J. W. Bloss, H. Briskin, J. E. Campbell, E. B. Hebert, and G. M. Revell
Review Article: The Management of Children With Spinal Dysraphism
J Child Neurol, January 1, 1988; 3(1): 3 - 20.
[Abstract] [PDF]