Anterior fusion surgery with overcorrection in the treatment of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis with Lenke 1 AR curve type: How to achieve overcorrection and its effect on postoperative spinal alignment

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-3117652/v1

Download PDF

Research Article

Anterior fusion surgery with overcorrection in the treatment of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis with Lenke 1 AR curve type: How to achieve overcorrection and its effect on postoperative spinal alignment

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-3117652/v1

This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License

Journal Publication

published 07 Nov, 2023

Read the published version in BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders →

You are reading this latest preprint version

Background

The efficacy of anterior fusion with overcorrection in the instrumented vertebra for Lenke 1 AR type curves has been reported, but how to achieve overcorrection and how overcorrection affects spinal alignment are unclear. The purpose of this study was to identify the factors that cause overcorrection, and to investigate how overcorrection affects postoperative spinal alignment in the surgical treatment of Lenke 1 AR type curves.

Methods

Patients who had anterior surgery for a Lenke type 1 or 2 and lumbar modifier AR (L4 vertebral tilt to the right) type scoliosis and minimum 2-year follow-up were included. The radiographic data were measured at preoperative, postoperative 1 month, and final follow-up. The UIV-LIV Cobb angle was determined as the Cobb angle between the upper instrumented vertebra (UIV) and the lower instrumented vertebra (LIV), and a negative number for this angle was considered overcorrection. The screw angle was determined to be the sum of the angle formed by the screw axis and the lower and upper endplates in the LIV and UIV, respectively. The change (Δ) in the parameters from postoperative to final follow-up was calculated. The relationships between the UIV-LIV Cobb angle and other radiographic parameters were evaluated by linear regression analyses.

Results

Fourteen patients met the inclusion criteria. Their median age was 15.5 years, and the median follow-up period was 53.6 months. The median UIV-LIV Cobb angle was − 1.4° at postoperative 1 month. The median screw angle was 4.7°, and overcorrection was achieved in 11 (79%) cases at postoperative 1 month. The screw angle (r² = 0.42, p = 0.012) and Δ below LIV-CSVL (the deviation of the first vertebra below the LIV from the central sacral vertical line, r² = 0.53, p = 0.003) were significantly correlated with the UIV-LIV Cobb angle.

Conclusions

Screw placement in the UIV and LIV not parallel to the endplate, but angled, was an effective method to facilitate overcorrection in the instrumented vertebrae. The results of the present study suggest that overcorrection could bring spontaneous improvement of coronal balance below the instrumented segment during the postoperative period.

Adolescent idiopathic scoliosis

Overcorrection

Lenke classification

1AR

Anterior surgery

The Lenke classification is widely used to define curve types in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS), ^{1, 2} and it is reported that Lenke 1A type has subtypes depending on the direction of L4 vertebral tilt, i.e. 1AL to the left and 1AR to the right.³ Adding-on is one of the postoperative complications of surgical treatment for Lenke 1A type scoliosis, which is caused by more proximal lower instrumented vertebra (LIV) selection than the ideal LIV position.^{4, 5} Some studies noted that 1AR curves require a more distal fusion than 1AL curves,^3,6 and Cho et al. reported that 1AR curves were 2.2 times more likely to experience adding-on than 1AL curves, and they recommended fusing distally to 1 to 2 levels above the stable vertebra.⁶

On the other hand, Inami et al. reported that anterior surgery for the 1AR curve could minimize the distal extent of the instrumented fusion without adding-on.⁷ Their median LIV level of anterior surgery of 3 levels above the stable vertebra should cause adding-on according to Cho’s report,⁶ but no adding-on was present. They suggested that the reason for the good surgical result was that short fusion and overcorrection between the upper instrumented vertebra (UIV) and the LIV would maintain trunk balance. Some studies of anterior spinal fusion in thoracolumbar/lumbar idiopathic scoliosis stated that the advantage of anterior fusion was shorter fusion at a caudal fusion level than posterior fusion.^8–10 Bernstein et al. reported good surgical results of short anterior fusion with overcorrection in the instrumented vertebra for thoracolumbar scoliosis.⁸ In the two studies by Inami⁷ and Bernstein⁸, the overcorrection in the anterior instrumented vertebra was considered the key factor for successful short anterior fusion, but how to achieve overcorrection and how overcorrection affects spinal alignment in the postoperative period were unclear.

The purpose of this study was to identify the factors related to overcorrection in the instrumented vertebra, and to investigate how overcorrection affects postoperative spinal alignment in the surgical treatment for a Lenke type 1 AR type curve.

This study was a single-institution, retrospective analysis of patients undergoing anterior surgery for AIS with a Lenke type 1 or 2, and lumbar modifier AR type, i.e., the L4 vertebra was determined to be tilted to the right as seen on a posteroanterior standing radiograph.³ Patients whose surgery was performed between 2008 and 2017 and had minimum 2-year follow up were included. The present study was conducted with institutional review board approval. Anterior surgery was chosen in cases with the apex vertebra of the main thoracic curve at or below the T10/11 disc, and the anterior and posterior combined approach was chosen in Lenke type 2 curves with the apex vertebra of the main thoracic curve at or below the T10/11 disc. Patients with the apex vertebra of the main thoracic curve above T10/11 disc were treated by posterior surgery and were therefore not included in this study.

Surgical Procedure

Surgical instrumentation included vertebral plates, monoaxial screws, and 4.5-mm titanium rods. The rod was not bent and was set into the screw head with cantilever force from the LIV to the UIV. The monoaxial screws in the UIV and LIV were placed not parallel to the endplate, but angled to facilitate overcorrection between the UIV and LIV. The screws were angled more cephalad toward caudally in the UIV, and more caudally toward cephalad in the LIV. It was expected that angled placement of screws makes overcorrection possible, because by securing a monoaxial screw rectangular to the rod, the LIV and UIV would tilt more to the direction of overcorrection (Fig. 1B,C).

Evaluation

Radiographic parameters including main thoracic Cobb angles, thoracic apical vertebral translation, C7-central sacral vertical line (CSVL), which was the deviation of the C7 vertebra from the CSVL, L4 tilt, which was the angle formed by its superior endplate and a horizontal line, disc angulation below the LIV, and below LIV-CSVL, which was the deviation of the first vertebra below the LIV from the CSVL, were measured at preoperative, postoperative 1 month, and final follow-up. The flexibility of the main thoracic curve was evaluated on side bending preoperatively. The UIV-LIV Cobb angle, which was the Cobb angle between the UIV and the LIV, was measured at postoperative 1 month and at final follow-up. The changes (Δs) in the parameters from postoperative 1 month to final follow-up were also calculated. Screw angle was determined to be the sum of the angle formed by the screw axis and the endplate (i.e. upper endplate in the UIV, lower endplate in the LIV) were measured on intraoperative radiographs taken just after screw placement (Fig. 1B). A negative number indicated either a tilt or translation or angle open to the left in the coronal plane. Screw angle was an exception in that a positive number indicated an angle open to the left. Overcorrection was determined to be a negative number for the UIV-LIV Cobb angle. Adding-on was defined by the criterion of Wang et al.⁴ at final follow-up.

Statistical analysis

Medians and ranges were calculated for continuous variables. To identify the factors related to overcorrection, the UIV-LIV Cobb angle and preoperative thoracic curve-related parameters (i.e. Cobb angle, flexibility, apical translation) and intraoperative parameters (i.e. screw angle) were evaluated by simple linear regression analyses. Furthermore, to evaluate the effect of overcorrection, radiographic parameters at postoperative 1 month and final follow-up and Δ values were evaluated by simple linear regression analyses. Statistical analyses were performed using the JMP software package (JMP 14.2, SAS, Cary, NC), and the level of significance was set at 0.05.

Patient data

Fourteen patients (11 females, 11 Lenke type 1, 3 Lenke type 2) met the inclusion criteria. The median (range) age was 15.5 (12-18) years, and the median (range) follow-up period was 53.6 (24-108) months. The distribution of the apex levels was T10/11 in 3 patients, T11 in 8, and T11/12 in 3. The UIV of anterior instrumentation was T8 in 7 patients, T9 in 5, and T10 in 2. The LIV of anterior instrumentation was L1 in 9 patients and L2 in 5. No distal adding-on was observed.

Radiographic findings

Radiographic parameters at preoperative, postoperative 1 month, and final follow-up and the Δs are shown in Table 1. The anterior surgery corrected the preoperative main thoracic curve, thoracic apical translation, L4 tilt, and below LIV-CSVL at postoperative 1 month. The main thoracic Cobb angle increased a few degrees, but thoracic apical translation and C7-CSVL decreased at final follow-up. The median values of Δ L4 tilt, Δ disc angulation below LIV, and Δ below LIV-CSVL were almost zero, but the range varied from minus to plus (Δ L4 tilt: minus in 5 patients, Δ disc angulation below LIV: minus in 5 patients, ΔLIV-CSVL: minus in 5 patients).

The median (interquartile range) UIV-LIV Cobb angle was -1.4° (-8.4 - -0.3°) at postoperative 1 month and -0.2° (-3.1 - 1.5°) at final follow-up (minus sign denotes overcorrection). Anterior surgery in this study achieved overcorrection in 11 (79%) patients at postoperative 1 month.

The median screw angle (interquartile range) was 4.7° (-5.6-21°).

Relationships between the UIV-LIV Cobb angle and the preoperative main curve-related parameters and screw angle

The UIV-LIV Cobb angle was significantly correlated with only the screw angle on linear regression model analysis, leading to the following equation:

Screw angle = - 0.97 × UIV-LIV Cobb angle + 1.62 (r² = 0.42, p = 0.012) (Table 2, Fig. 2)

Relationships between the UIV-LIV Cobb angle and postoperative parameters

There were no significant correlations with the UIV-LIV Cobb angle in the parameters of postoperative 1 month and final follow-up (Table 3). However, the UIV-LIV Cobb angle was significantly correlated with Δ below LIV-CSVL in a linear regression model, leading to the following equation:

Δ below LIV-CSVL = 0.46 × UIV-LIV Cobb angle + 1.91 (r² = 0.53, p = 0.003) (Table 4, Fig. 3)

There are no past studies on the factors involved in achieving overcorrection in anterior fusion surgery for Lenke 1 AR type curves, and the details remain unclear. This is the first study to demonstrate that the screw angle (sum of screw insertion angles in UIV and LIV) is related to overcorrection. The effects of fusion with overcorrection on the postoperative course have also not been studied, but the present study showed for the first time the relationship between overcorrection and postoperative changes in below LIV-CSVL.

In the present study, to consider the factors involved in achieving overcorrection, the preoperative Cobb angle, flexibility, and apical translation were assumed to be factors in the main thoracic curve itself, and the screw angle was examined as a candidate factor related to the surgical technique. In idiopathic scoliosis, the preoperative Cobb angle and flexibility have been considered factors that affect correction of the deformity in surgery,^7,11 but in the present study, no correlation was seen with the UIV-LIV Cobb angle. The relative flexibility (flexibility: 69%) of the main thoracic curve that was examined in the present series, and the fact that cases of severe deformity with a large curve were not included (median Cobb angle: 55.1˚, interquartile range: 46.9˚-61.3˚), are thought to be involved as contributing factors. In the present series, the indication for anterior fusion was taken to be the apical vertebra at or below the T10/11 disc. Inami et al. examined the flexibility of the 1AR curve type and reported that the curve was more flexible in patients whose apical vertebra was at or below the T10/11 disc than in patients whose apical vertebra was T10 or higher .⁷

In the end, only the screw angle was correlated with the UIV-LIV Cobb angle (Fig. 2). Considering that a larger screw angle is thought to be a mechanism enabling overcorrection between UIV-LIV, the monoaxial screws were given greater angles than the endplate (i.e., the screws were angled more cephalad toward caudally in the UIV, and more caudally toward cephalad in the LIV than the endplate) with sufficient release of the intervertebral space, and the rod and vertebral body were corrected to a rectangle or more by fixing the rod and screw in a rectangle (Fig. 1B,C). To create sufficient release between the vertebrae, sufficient removal of the intervertebral disc and cartilage endplate is important. Once a screw is inserted with an angle, it is important that it does not loosen during correction. For that purpose, it was decided to use a cantilever technique with a 4.5-mm titanium rod which has a little flexibility.

No parameters were significantly related to the UIV-LIV Cobb angle at postoperative 1 month and the final follow-up. However, a significant relationship was seen between the UIV-LIV Cobb angle and Δ below LIV-CSVL (Fig. 3). Thus, strongly overcorrecting at UIV-LIV was shown to produce a spontaneous correction with a balance in the lumbar coronal plane, which is a non-fused site below LIV, in the postoperative course (Fig. 1C,D). Spontaneous improvement in the global coronal balance (i.e. C7-CSVL) during the postoperative course following anterior fusion has been reported in the past study with Lenke 5 curve type. Yoshihara reviewed surgery outcomes of Lenke type 5, and in all 37 reports in that review, the coronal imbalance by C7-CSVL seen immediately after surgery was reported to have improved at the final follow-up.¹² In that review, it was reported that the disc angulation below the LIV increased immediately after the anterior fusion surgery, and it increased slightly even in the postoperative course. The disc angulation below the LIV in the present study showed a change similar to that report. However, with regard to the changes in below LIV-CSVL in the postoperative course, an increasing phenomenon has been reported in papers related to adding-on, but there are no past reports of a spontaneous decreasing phenomenon in the postoperative period. In the present study, cases in which below LIV-CSVL decreased in the postoperative period (i.e. from postoperative 1 month to final follow-up) were shown to exist (5 of 14 cases), and this is the first time that postoperative change of below LIV-CSVL showing a relationship with UIV-LIV Cobb angle has been reported.

The mechanism for spontaneous correction of below LIV-CSVL by overcorrection in the instrumented vertebrae must be considered. In general, for a decrease of below LIV-CSVL to occur, leveling of vertebral bodies caudal to LIV and a decrease in disc angle are thought to be necessary. Therefore, as a sub-analysis, a regression analysis of the relationship between Δ disc angulation below LIV or Δ L4 tilt and Δ LIV-CSVL was performed, but no significant relationship was found. Thus, the mechanism for the spontaneous correction of below LIV-CSVL cannot be clearly shown here. The sum total of slight changes in the balance at multiple sites distal to the LIV, such as vertebral bodies caudal to LIV and disc angle, as well as the sacroiliac joint and lower limb compensation, may be expressed as spontaneous correction of below LIV-CSVL. In elucidating this mechanism, future studies with larger numbers of cases will be necessary.

This study has some limitations. First is the small number of patients. This was because the patients were limited to those with Lenke 1 AR curve type and the apical vertebra at or below the T10/11 disc. In the future, it will be necessary to increase the number of patients and verify unresolved issues such as those touched on above. Second, the relationships with quality of life (QOL) assessments and pain or other symptoms were not evaluated. Disc angulation below LIV and remaining below LIV-CSVL are reported to be involved in degeneration of discs at non-fused sites distal to LIV,¹³ and thus clinical evaluations during long-term follow-up will be needed in the future.

In anterior fusion for patients with a Lenke type 1 AR curve type and apical vertebra at or below the T10/11 disc, overcorrection was achieved in the fusion range in 11 of 13 patients. The screw insertion angle was identified as a significant factor related to the achievement of overcorrection. In addition, overcorrection was shown to significantly affect changes over time below LIV-CSVL postoperatively. Overcorrection with anterior fusion is thought to be an effective method with which an improvement in the coronal balance over time can be expected.

UIV Upper instrumented vertebra

LIV Lower instrumented vertebra

AIS Adolescent idiopathic scoliosis

CSVL Central sacral vertical line

QOL Quality of life

Ethics approval and consent to participant

This study has been performed in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and has been approved by the Institutional Review Board of Dokkyo Medical University (Approval code: 28082). All the patients provided informed consent for inclusion in this study.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Availability of data and materials

The data used and/or analyzed during this study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Founding

Authors’ contributions

HT, YN and SI designed the study. NT, SI, HM, TS, HU, HA and ST acquired the data. NT and SI analyzed the data. HT and HH supervised the study. NT wrote the first draft and SI edited the manuscript.

Acknowledgements

Not applicable

Lenke LG, Betz RR, Harms J, et al. Adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: a new classification to determine extent of spinal arthrodesis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2001;83:1169–81.
Lenke LG, Betz RR, Clements D, et al. Curve prevalence of a new classification of operative adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: does classification correlate with treatment? Spine. 2002;27:604–11.
Miyanji F, Pawelek JB, Van Valin SE, Upasani VV, Newton PO. Is the lumbar modifier useful in surgical decision making? Defining two distinct Lenke 1A patterns. Spine. 2008;33(23):2545–51.
Wang Y, Hansen ES, Høy K, Wu C, Bünger CE. Distal adding-on phenomenon in Lenke 1A scoliosis: risk factor identification and treatment strategy comparison. Spine. 2011;36(14):1113–22.
Matsumoto M, Watanabe K, Hosogane N, et al. Postoperative distal adding-on and related factors in Lenke type 1A curve. Spine. 2013;38(9):737–44.
Cho RH, Yaszay B, Bartley CE, Bastrom TP, Newton PO. Which Lenke 1A curves are at the greatest risk for adding-on… and why? Spine. 2012;37(16):1384–90.
Inami S, Moridaira H, Takeuchi D, et al. Anterior instrumentation surgery for the treatment of Lenke type 1AR curve patterns. J Neurosurg Spine. 2021;1:1–8.
Bernstein RM, Hall JE. Solid rod short segment anterior fusion in thoracolumbar scoliosis. J Pediatr Orthop. 1998;7:124–31.
Li M, Ni J, Fang X, et al. Comparison of selective anterior versus posterior screw instrumentation in Lenke 5C adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Spine. 2009;34(11):1162–6.
Luo M, Wang W, Shen M, Xia L. Anterior versus posterior approach in Lenke 5C adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: a meta-analysis of fusion segments and radiological outcomes. J Orthop Surg Res. 2016;11:77.
Yang M, Zhao Y, Yin X, et al. Prevalence, risk factor, and characteristics of the “adding-on” phenomenon in idiopathic scoliosis after correction surgery. Spine. 2018;43:780–90.
Yoshihara H. Surgical treatment of Lenke type 5 adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Spine. 2018;44:E788–99.
Lonner BS, Ren Y, Upasani VV, et al. Disc degeneration in unfused caudal motion segments ten years following surgery for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Spine Deform. 2018;6:684–90.

Table 1. Radiographic parameters

Preoperative

Postoperative

Final follow-up

Median (Range)

Median

(Range)

Median

(Range)

Main thoracic Cobb angle (°)

55.1

(46.9 - 61.3)

(11.2 - 21.1)

19.5

(14.1 - 26)

2.4

(-2.8 - 6.2)

Thoracic flexibility (%)

(65.1 - 75.6)

Thoracic apical translation (mm)

(59.1 - 73.9)

(8.8 - 22)

(6.3 - 19.5)

-1.5

(-5.3 - 0.9)

C7-CSVL (mm)

(3.2 - 25.2)

(0.5 - 24.5)

2.5

(-0.3 - 5.3)

-6.8

(-27.8 - 0.5)

L4 tilt (°)

(9.3 - 21.4)

2.2

(0 - 6.8)

3.3

(0 - 11.0)

(-1.4 - 1.9)

Disc angulation below LIV (°)

3.5

(-3 - 4.7)

4.6

(2.3 - 6.5)

4.2

(2.5 - 7.7)

0.4

(-2.1 - 2.2)

Below LIV-CSVL (mm)

21.4

(19.9 - 33.3)

5.15

(2.3 - 12.5)

5.8

(1.5 - 13.3)

(-2.1 - 4)

UIV-LIV Cobb angle (°)

-1.4

(-8.4 - -0.3)

-0.2

(-3.1 - 1.5)

2.1

(0.5 - 4)

Range indicates interquartile range. Δ, the change from postoperative 1 month to final follow-up; CSVL, central sacral vertical line; LIV, lower instrumented vertebra; UIV, upper instrumented vertebra.

A negative number indicates either a tilt or translation or angle open to the left in the coronal plane.

Table 2. Regression analyses of the UIV-LIV Cobb angle vs. preoperative main curve-related parameters and screw angle
	r²	p
Main thoracic Cobb angle (°)	0.04	0.51
Thoracic flexibility (%)	0.04	0.47
Thoracic apical translation (mm)	1.153e-5	0.99
Screw angle	0.42	0.012

UIV, upper instrumented vertebra; LIV, lower instrumented vertebra.

Table 3. Regression analyses of the UIV-LIV Cobb angle vs. postoperative parameters
	Postoperative 1 month		Final follow-up
	r²	p	r²	p
Main thoracic Cobb angle (°)	0.03	0.55	0.06	0.41
Thoracic apical translation (mm)	1.115e-5	0.99	0.03	0.54
Disc angulation below LIV (°)	0.28	0.054	0.06	0.42
Below LIV-CSVL (mm)	0.04	0.51	0.04	0.51
L4 tilt (°)	0.25	0.07	0.11	0.26
C7-CSVL (mm)	0.005	0.81	6.036e-5	0.98

UIV, upper instrumented vertebra; LIV, lower instrumented vertebra; CSVL, central sacral vertical line.

Table 4. Regression analyses of the UIV-LIV Cobb angle vs. Δ
	r²	p
Δ Main thoracic Cobb angle (°)	0.03	0.54
Δ Thoracic apical translation (mm)	0.09	0.29
Δ Disc angulation below LIV (°)	0.03	0.54
Δ below LIV-CSVL (mm)	0.53	0.003
Δ L4 tilt (°)	0.05	0.46
Δ C7-CSVL (mm)	0.006	0.79

UIV, upper instrumented vertebra; LIV, lower instrumented vertebra; Δ, the change from postoperative 1 month to final follow-up; CSVL, central sacral vertical line.

No competing interests reported.

Download PDF

Journal Publication

published 07 Nov, 2023

Read the published version in BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders →

Editorial decision: Major revision
02 Oct, 2023
Reviewers agreed at journal
28 Sep, 2023
Reviews received at journal
25 Sep, 2023
Reviewers agreed at journal
18 Sep, 2023
Reviews received at journal
23 Aug, 2023
Reviewers agreed at journal
13 Aug, 2023
Reviewers invited by journal
17 Jul, 2023
Editor assigned by journal
17 Jul, 2023
Editor invited by journal
06 Jul, 2023
Submission checks completed at journal
06 Jul, 2023
First submitted to journal
27 Jun, 2023

You are reading this latest preprint version

Anterior fusion surgery with overcorrection in the treatment of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis with Lenke 1 AR curve type: How to achieve overcorrection and its effect on postoperative spinal alignment

Status:

Journal Publication

Version 1

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Figures

Background

Methods

Statistical analysis

Results

Discussion

Conclusions

Abbreviations

Declarations

References

Tables

Additional Declarations

Status:

Journal Publication

Version 1