header advert
Orthopaedic Proceedings Logo

Receive monthly Table of Contents alerts from Orthopaedic Proceedings

Comprehensive article alerts can be set up and managed through your account settings

View my account settings

Visit Orthopaedic Proceedings at:

Loading...

Loading...

Full Access

COMPARISON OF VIDEO ASSISTED THORACOSCOPIC ANTERIOR FUSION AND INSTRUMENTATION AND CONVENTIONAL POSTERIOR INSTRUMENTED FUSION IN KING TYPE III ADOLESCENT IDIOPATHIC SCOLIOSIS



Abstract

Study Design: Compartative cohort study.

Objective: To compare the safety and efficacy of conventional posterior instrumented fusion versus thoracoscopic instrumented fusion for the surgical treatment of King Type III adolescent idiopathic scoliosis.

Methods: The results of 34 consecutive patients with King type 3 scoliosis treated with one of the above techniques were analyzed independantly. Twenty-two patients underwent posterior spinal fusion (PSF) and instrumentation (Moss-Miami). Twelve patients had thoracoscopic fusion (TF) and instrumentation (Eclipse).

Results: Baseline demographics (age at menarche and surgery, pre-operative Cobb angles in coronal and sagittal planes), estimated blood loss at surgery and duration of parenteral analgesia did not differ between the two groups. PSF patients had significantly higher transfusion requirements (p=0.032). Operative time (p = 0.0001), ICU stay (p = 0.005), and hospital stay (p = 0.037) were longer in TF cases. There were no complications in PSF patients. Complications in TF patients included lobar collapse (1 patient) and scapula winging (1 patient). Improvement in scoliosis among PSF patients averaged 75% (1 week), 70% (6 months), and 65% (1 year). In TF patients, mean improvement in scoliosis was 66% (1 week), 62% (6 months), and 62% (1 year). The differences between the two groups in terms of scoliosis improvement were not significant. Curves with apex at T8 or higher had better correction of scoliosis (p = 0.05). The sagittal alignment (thoracic kyphosis and lumbar lordosis) after surgery was similar between the two groups at 1 week, 6 months, and 1 year post-operatively.

Conclusion: The efficacy of thoracoscopic anterior fusion and instrumentation is similar to standard posterior instrumented fusion. The advantages of the thoracoscopic technique are the avoidance of a long posterior midline scar, and lower transfusion requirement. A longer operative time, ICU and hospital stay was attributed to the steep learning curve of this endoscopic technique.

These abstracts were prepared by Mr. Brian J C Freeman FRCS (Tr & Orth). Correspondence should be addressed to him at The Centre for Spinal Studies and Surgery, University Hospital, Queens Medical Centre, Nottingham NG7 2UH.