Patient outcomes using the Scoliosis Research Society (SRS) questionnaire after thoracoscopic and posterior surgical techniques for thoracic idiopathic scoliosis were compared after > 2 years post-op. Additional comparisons were made with non-operated scoliosis and normal patients. Our objective was to determine if scoliosis surgery and surgical technique used to treat a cohort of patients with the same type of scoliosis deformity affects patient outcome. The SRS-24 questionnaire was prospectively administered to 4 groups of patients:

42 patients with thoracic idiopathic scoliosis who underwent thoracoscopic instrumented fusion surgery (thoracoscopic group);

The 2 surgical groups were comparable with regards to age at surgery, pre-op Cobbo and follow-up. SRS-24 domian scores were computed for all 4 groups and were compared on SPSSv13 software. Our results show the thoracoscopic group having a significantly smaller mean post-op Cobbo (17° vs 25.1°, respectively; p< .001), which was achieved using less fusion segments (7 vs 9.3 segments, respectively; p< .001). The mean Cobbo of the scoliosis control group was significantly larger than the post-op Cobbo of the thoracoscopic group (p< .001), and was comparable to the post-op Cobbo of the posterior group. Comparing the 2 surgical groups, the thoracoscopic group showed trends towards better scores in 4 of the SRS-24 domains compared to the posterior group, but this only reached statistical significance for the satisfaction domain (p< .05). When comparing the 4 groups, Pain scores of both surgical groups were similar to those who did not have surgery, and were worse than normal patients (p< .0001); Self-image scores after surgery were higher than those who did not have surgery(p< .05) and were comparable to normal patients; Function and Activity scores of the thoracoscopic group was significantly inferior to the scoliosis control group (p< .05). Our study demonstrates that > 2 years after surgery, both thoracoscopic & posterior surgery resulted in pain scores that were similar to patients with scoliosis that did not have surgery, and were worse than the normal group. However, both surgical techniques resulted in self-image scores that are comparable to normal individuals despite a difference in post-op Cobbo. When comparing the two surgical techniques, the SRS-24 showed no difference between the 2 surgical techniques, except for patient satisfaction which was better in the thoracoscopic group.

Posterior instrumented fusion is an established surgical treatment for majority of AIS cases. In the past decade, thoracoscopic instrumentation and fusion has emerged as a viable alternative to conventional posterior techniques in situations that require selective thoracic fusion. Most reports comparing the two techniques have focused on physician-based outcomes such as curve correction and maintenance of the surgical correction with both methods being comparable. Recently, the SRS-24 has been used to evaluate patient-based outcomes after scoliosis surgery. The instrument assesses seven equally-weighted domains that look at pain, self-image, general function, activity level, change in self-image and function post-surgery, and satisfaction with the procedure. It has been used to evaluate differences between AIS and normal patients, and in different degrees of AIS deformity. The instrument has not been used in comparing different methods of surgical treatment for similar curve types.

We applied the SRS-24 prospectively to our patients who had undergone either thoracoscopic (TG) or posterior (PG) instrumented fusion, and had been followed-up for at least 12-months postoperatively. There were 42 patients in TG and 42 patients in PG. The mean age at time of surgery, pre-operative Cobb angles, and number of spinal segments fused were similar in both groups. The mean follow-up period at the time the SRS instrument was administered was 26 (± 13.5) months for TG and 30.7 (± 12.1) months for PG. The postoperative Cobb angle on the latest follow-up was significantly better for TG compared to PG (17 versus 25.1 degrees, respectively; p < .001). Upon comparing the SRS domain scores between both groups, a significant difference was noted only in the patient satisfaction domain with TG scoring better than PG (p < .02).

The first four SRS-24 domain scores for TG and PG were also compared to the corresponding domain scores of 97 patients who had scoliosis but were not candidates for surgery (SG), as well as to the scores of 72 patients who did not have scoliosis (NG). SG, TG, and PG were comparable with regards to pain and all three were significantly lower compared to NG (F=14.828, p < .0001).

General function and activity level scores of TG were significantly lower compared to the other three groups (F=4.870, p < .003 and F=4.793, p < .003, respectively). Despite this, the self-image domain scores of both TG and PG were not significantly different from NG, with SG scoring significantly poorer compared to the other three groups (F=3.183, p < .02).

In summary, thoracoscopic instrumented fusion resulted in better curve correction compared to posterior instrumented fusion and was achieved with less spinal segments being fused. This was despite the finding that patients who underwent thoracoscopic surgery had lower physical function and activity level scores. Additionally, both surgical techniques resulted in patients whose perception of themselves was comparable to those patients who did not have scoliosis. The SRS-24 was not able to detect any differences between the two surgical methods in all domains except for overall patient satisfaction which was significantly better in the thoracoscopic group.