Cotrel-dubousset instrumentation for the correction of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Long-term results with an unexpected high revision rate

Scoliosis

Herbert Gluch²  Franz J Mueller¹ 

[1] Hospital for orthopedic and trauma surgery, Hospital Barmherzige Brueder, Regensburg, 93042, Germany;Department of Spinal Surgery and Scoliosis Centre, Behandlungszentrum Vogtareuth, Germany

关键词: Outcome;    Surgery;    Adolescent idiopathic scoliosis;   

Others  :  791511
DOI  :  10.1186/1748-7161-7-13

 received in 2012-02-03, accepted in 2012-05-26,  发布年份 2012

【 摘 要 】

Background

For many years, the CD instrumentation has been regarded as the standard device for the surgical correction of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS). Nevertheless, scientific long-term results on this procedure are rare. Therefore, we conducted a retrospective follow-up study of patients treated for AIS with CD instrumentation and spondylodesis.

Methods

A total of 40 patients with AIS underwent CD instrumentation in our department within 3 years and between 1990 and 1992. For the retrospective analysis, first all the patient documents were reviewed, and pre-/postoperative X-ray images as well as those at the latest follow-up were analysed. Furthermore, it was attempted to conduct a clinical survey using the SRS-24 questionnaire, which was sent to the patients after a preceding announcement on the phone.

Results

Radiologically, the frontal main curvature was improved from a preoperative angle of 69.2° to a postoperative angle of 35.4°, and the secondary curvature was improved from a preoperative angle of 42.6° to a postoperative angle of 20.5°. The latest radiological follow-up at average 57.4 months post surgery showed an average loss of correction of 9.6° (main curvature) and 4.6° (secondary curvature), respectively.

Within the first 30 days post surgery, 3 out of 40 patients (7.5%) received early operative revision for the dislocation of hooks or rods.

At an average of 45.7 months (range 11 to 142 months), 19 out of 40 patients (47.5%; including 2 patients with early revision) received late operative revisions: The reasons were late infection (10 out of 40 patients; 25%) with the development of fistulae (7 cases) or putrid secretion (3 cases), which was resolved with the complete removal of instrumentation after all. The average time until revision was 35.5 months (range 14 to 56 months) after CD instrumentation. Furthermore, complete implant removal was necessary in 8 out of 40 patients (20%) for late operate site pain (LOSP). The average time until removal of instrumentation was 62.7 months (range 18 to 146 months) post surgery; and one patient received partial device removal for prominent instrumentation 11 months post surgery. Altogether, only 22 out of 40 CD instrumentations (55%) were still in situ.

After an average period of 14.3 years post surgery, it was possible to follow-up 14 out of 40 patients (35%) using the SRS-24 questionnaire. The average score was 93 points, without showing significant differences between patients with or without their instrumentation in situ.

Conclusions

Retrospectively, we documented for the first time a very high revisions rate in patients with AIS and treated by CD instrumentation. Nearly half of the instrumentation had to be removed due to late infection and LOSP. The reasons for the high rate of late infections with or without fistulae and for LOSP were analysed and discussed in detail.

【 授权许可】

   
2012 Mueller and Gluch; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Harrington PR: Treatment of scoliosis. Correction and internal fixation by spine instrumentation. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1962, 44:591-610.
• [2]Haher TR, Merola A, Zipnick RI, Gorup J, Mannor D, Orchowski J: Meta-analysis of surgical outcome in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. A 35-year English literature review of 11,000 patients. Spine 1995, 20:1575-1584.
• [3]Humke T, Grob D, Scheier H, Siegrist H: Cotrel-Dubousset and Harrington Instrumentation in idiopathic scoliosis: a comparison of long-term results. Euro Spine J 1995, 4:280-283.
• [4]Padua R, Padua S, Aulisa L, Ceccarelli E, Padua L, Romanini E, Zanoli G, Campi A: Patient outcomes after Harrington instrumentation for idiopathic scoliosis: a 15- to 28- year evaluation. Spine 2001, 26:1268-1273.
• [5]Dickson JH, Harrington PR: An eleven-year clinical investigation of Harrington instrumentation. A preliminary report of 578 cases. CORR 1973, 93:113-130.
• [6]Danielsson AJ, Wiklund I, Pehrsson K, Nachemson AL: Health-related quality of life in patients with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: a matched follow-up at least 20 years after treatment with brace or surgery. Euro Spine J 2001, 10:278-288.
• [7]Mariconda M, Galasso O, Barca P, Milano C: Minimum 20-year follow-up results of Harrington rod fusion for idiopathic scoliosis. Euro Spine J 2005, 14:854-861.
• [8]Cotrel Y, Dubousset J: Nouvelle technique d’ostheosynthèse rachidienne sègmentaire par voie postèrieure. Rev Chir Orthop 1984, 70:489-495.
• [9]Cundy PJ, Paterson DC, Hillier TM, Sutherland AD, Stephen JP, Foster BK: Cotrel-Dubousset instrumentation and vertebral rotation in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1990, 72:670-674.
• [10]Luque ER: Segmental spinal instrumentation for correction of scoliosis. CORR 1982, 163:192-198.
• [11]Mueller FJ, Gluch H: Adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) treated with arthrodesis and posterior instrumentation: 8 to 12 years follow up without late infection. Scoliosis 2009, 4:16. BioMed Central Full Text
• [12]King HA, Moe JH, Bradford DS, Winter RB: The selection of fusion levels in thoracic idiopathic scoliosis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1983, 65:1302-1313.
• [13]Cobb JR: Outline for the study of scoliosis. Instr Cours Lect 1948, 5:261-275.
• [14]Boss N, Dolan LA, Weinstein SL: Long term clinical and radiographic results of Cotrel-Dubousset instrumentation of right thoracic adolescent scoliosis. Iowa Orthopedic Journal 2007, 27:40-46.
• [15]Weigert KP, Nygaard LM, Christensen FB, Hansen ES, Bünger C: Outcome in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis after brace treatment and surgery assessed by means of the Scoliosis Research Society instrument 24. Euro Spine J 2006, 15:1108-1117.
• [16]Helenius I, Remes V, Yrjönen T, Ylikoski M, Schlenzka D, Helenius M, Poussa M: Harrington and Cotrel-Dubousset instrumentation in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Long-term functional and radiographic outcomes. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2003, 85:2303-2309.
• [17]Bjerkreim I, Steen H, Brox JI: Idiopathic scoliosis treated with Cotrel-Dubousset instrumentation. Evaluation 10 years after surgery. Spine 2007, 32:2103-2110.
• [18]Bago J, Ramirez M, Pellise F, Villanueva C: Survivorship analysis of Cotrel-Dubousset instrumentation in idiopathic scoliosis. Euro Spine J 2003, 12:435-439.
• [19]Cook S, Asher M, Lai SM, Shobe J: Reoperation after primary posterior instrumentation and fusion for idiopathic scoliosis. Spine 2000, 25:463-468.
• [20]Clark CE, Shufflebarger HL: Late-developing infection in instrumented idiopathic scoliosis. Spine 1999, 24:1909-1912.
• [21]Lenke LG, Bridwell KH, Blanke K, Baldus C, Weston J: Radiographic results of arthrodesis with Cotrel-Dubousset instrumentation for the treatment of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. A five to ten-year follow-up study. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1998, 80:807-814.
• [22]Takahashi S, Delecrin J, Passuti N: Changes in the unfused lumbar spine in patients with idiopathic scoliosis. A 5- to 9-year assessment after cotrel-dubousset instrumentation. Spine 1997, 22:517-523.
• [23]Hahn F, Zbinden R, Min K: Late implant infections caused by Propionibacterium acnes in scoliosis surgery. Euro Spine J 2005, 14:783-788.
• [24]Richards BS: Delayed infections following posterior spinal instrumentation for the treatment of idiopathic scoliosis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1995, 77:524-529.
• [25]Kostuik JP: Adult scoliosis. In Textbook of spinal surgery. Edited by Bridwell KH, Dewald RL. JB Lippincott, Philadelphia; 1991:261-265.
• [26]Gaine WJ, Andrew SM, Chadwick P, Cooke E, Williamson JB: Late operative site pain with isola posterior instrumentation requiring implant removal: infection or metal reaction? Spine 2001, 26:583-587.