This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) CME: Take the exam for this article: CME 2: April, May, June 2006 (publication date July 5, 2006; expiration dat... [Supplementary Material] Letters to the Editor: Submit a response Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when Letters to the Editor are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Related articles in JBJS Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to My File Cabinet Download to citation manager Reprints and Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Lonner, B. S. Articles by Scharf, C. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Lonner, B. S. Articles by Scharf, C. Related Collections Spine Social Bookmarking             What's this?

Thoracoscopic Spinal Fusion Compared with Posterior Spinal Fusion for the Treatment of Thoracic Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis

¹ 212 East 69th Street, New York, NY 10021. E-mail address for B.S. Lonner: blonner{at}nyc.rr.com
² Department of Orthopaedics, Long Island Jewish-North Shore University Medical Center, 270-05 76th Avenue, New Hyde Park, NY 11040

Investigation performed at Lenox Hill Hospital, New York, NY

The authors did not receive grants or outside funding in support of their research for or preparation of this manuscript. They did not receive payments or other benefits or a commitment or agreement to provide such benefits from a commercial entity. No commercial entity paid or directed, or agreed to pay or direct, any benefits to any research fund, foundation, educational institution, or other charitable or nonprofit organization with which the authors are affiliated or associated.

Methods: Radiographic data, Scoliosis Research Society patient-based outcome questionnaires, pulmonary function, and operative records were reviewed for fifty-one patients undergoing surgical treatment of scoliosis. Data were collected preoperatively, immediately postoperatively, and at the time of the final follow-up. The radiographic parameters that were analyzed included coronal curve correction, the most caudad instrumented vertebra tilt angle correction, coronal balance, and thoracic kyphosis. The operative parameters that were evaluated included the operative time, the estimated blood loss, the blood transfusion rate, the number of levels fused, the type of bone graft used, and the number of intraoperative and postoperative complications. The pulmonary function parameters that were analyzed included vital capacity and peak flow.

Results: The thoracoscopic group included twenty-eight patients with a mean age of 14.6 years, and the posterior fusion group included twenty-three patients with a mean age of 14.3 years. The percent correction was 54.5% for the thoracoscopic group and 55.3% for the posterior group. With the numbers available, there were no significant differences between the two groups in terms of kyphosis (p = 0.84), coronal balance (p = 0.70), or tilt angle (p = 0.91) at the time of the final follow-up. The mean number of levels fused was 5.8 in the thoracoscopic group, compared with 9.3 levels in the posterior group (p < 0.0001). The estimated blood loss in the thoracoscopic group was significantly less than that in the posterior fusion group (361 mL compared with 545 mL; p = 0.03), and the transfusion rate in the thoracoscopic group was significantly lower than that in the posterior fusion group (14% compared with 43%; p = 0.01). Operative time in the thoracoscopic group was significantly greater than that in the posterior group (6.0 compared with 3.3 hours, p < 0.0001). There were no intraoperative complications in either group. Vital capacity and peak flow had returned to baseline levels in both groups at the time of the final follow-up. Patients in the thoracoscopic group scored higher than those in the posterior group in terms of the total score (p < 0.0001) and all of the domains (p < 0.01) of the Scoliosis Research Society questionnaire at the time of the final follow-up.

Conclusions: Thoracoscopic spinal instrumentation compares favorably with posterior fusion in terms of coronal plane curve correction and balance, sagittal contour, the rate of complications, pulmonary function, and patient-based outcomes. The advantages of the procedure include the need for fewer levels of spinal fusion, less operative blood loss, lower transfusion requirements, and improved cosmesis as a result of small, well-hidden incisions. However, the operative time for the thoracoscopic procedure was nearly twice that for the posterior approach. Additional study is needed to determine the precise role of thoracoscopic spinal instrumentation in the treatment of thoracic adolescent idiopathic scoliosis.

Level of Evidence: Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions to Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Technorati    What's this?

Related articles in JBJS:

Thoracoscopic Spinal Fusion Compared with Posterior Spinal Fusion for the Treatment of Thoracic Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis. Surgical Technique

Baron S. Lonner, Dimitry Kondrachov, Farhan Siddiqi, Victor Hayes, and Carrie Scharf
JBJS 2007 89: 142-156. [Abstract] [Full Text]  

This article has been cited by other articles:

				L. Y. Carreon, R. M. Puno, L. G. Lenke, B. S. Richards, D. J. Sucato, J. B. Emans, and M. A. Erickson Non-Neurologic Complications Following Surgery for Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis J. Bone Joint Surg. Am., November 1, 2007; 89(11): 2427 - 2432. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				D. J. Sucato and Y.-J. Kim What's New in Pediatric Orthopaedics J. Bone Joint Surg. Am., May 1, 2007; 89(5): 1141 - 1150. [Full Text] [PDF]

Stanford University Libraries' HighWire Press (TM) assists in the publication of JBJS Online.
Copyright © 2006 by The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Inc. Online ISSN: 1535-1386.
The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery®, JBJS®, JB&JS®, and eJBJS® are registered in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.