Top

14-05-2024 | Original Article

Flexible posterior vertebral tethering for the management of Scheuermann’s kyphosis: correction by using growth modulation—clinical and radiographic outcomes of the first 10 patients with at least 3 years of follow-up

Authors: Mehmet Aydogan, Tuna Pehlivanoglu, Yigit Erdag, Umut Dogu Akturk, Abdulhalim Akar

Abstract

Purpose

The present prospective cohort study was intended to present the minimum 3 years’ results of flexible posterior vertebral tethering (PVT) applied to 10 skeletally immature patients with SK to question, if it could be an alternative to fusion.

Methods

Ten skeletally immature patients with radiographically confirmed SK, who had flexible (minimum 35%) kyphotic curves (T2–T12), were included. A decision to proceed with PVT was based on curve progression within the brace, and/or persistent pain, and/or unacceptable cosmetic concerns of the patient/caregivers, and/or non-compliance within the brace.

Results

Patients had an average age of 13.1 (range 11–15) and an average follow-up duration of 47.6 months (range 36–60). Posterior vertebral tethering (PVT) was undertaken to all patients by utilizing Wiltse approach and placing monoaxial pedicle screws intermittently. At the final follow-up: mean pre-operative thoracic kyphosis and lumbar lordosis improved from 73.6°–45.7° to 34.7°–32.1°. Mean sagittal vertical axis, vertebral wedge angle and total SRS-22 scores improved significantly. A fulcrum lateral X-ray obtained at the latest follow-up, showed that the tethered levels remained mobile.

Conclusion

This study, for the first time in the literature, concluded, that as a result of growth modulation applied to skeletally immature patients with SK, flexible PVT was detected to yield gradual correction of the thoracic kyphosis by reverting the pathological vertebral wedging process, while keeping the mobility of the tethered segments in addition to successful clinical–functional results. The successful results of the present study answered the role of the PVT as a viable alternative to fusion in skeletally immature patients with SK.

Level of evidence

IV.

Sørensen KH (1964) Scheuermann’s juvenile kyphosis: clinical appearances, radiography, aetiology, and prognosis. Munksgaard, Copenhagen

Sardar ZM, Ames RJ, Lenke L (2019) Scheuermann’s kyphosis: diagnosis, management, and selecting fusion levels. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 27:e462–e472. https://doi.org/10.5435/JAAOS-D-17-00748CrossRefPubMed

Zhu W, Sun X, Pan W et al (2019) Curve patterns deserve attention when determining the optimal distal fusion level in correction surgery for Scheuermann kyphosis. Spine J 19:1529–1539. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2019.04.007CrossRefPubMed

Polly DWJ, Ledonio CGT, Diamond B et al (2019) What are the indications for spinal fusion surgery in Scheuermann kyphosis? J Pediatr Orthop 39:217–221. https://doi.org/10.1097/BPO.0000000000000931CrossRefPubMed

Horn SR, Poorman GW, Tishelman JC et al (2019) Trends in treatment of Scheuermann kyphosis: a study of 1,070 cases from 2003 to 2012. Spine Deform 7:100–106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jspd.2018.06.004CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Green DW, Lawhorne TW 3rd, Widmann RF et al (2011) Long-term magnetic resonance imaging follow-up demonstrates minimal transitional level lumbar disc degeneration after posterior spine fusion for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 36:1948–1954. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181ff1ea9CrossRefPubMed

Kepler CK, Meredith DS, Green DW, Widmann RF (2012) Long-term outcomes after posterior spine fusion for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Curr Opin Pediatr 24:68–75. https://doi.org/10.1097/MOP.0b013e32834ec982CrossRefPubMed

Danielsson AJ, Romberg K, Nachemson AL (2006) Spinal range of motion, muscle endurance, and back pain and function at least 20 years after fusion or brace treatment for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: a case-control study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 31:275–283. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.brs.0000197652.52890.71CrossRefPubMed

Samdani AF, Ames RJ, Kimball JS et al (2015) Anterior vertebral body tethering for immature adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: one-year results on the first 32 patients. Eur Spine J Off Publ Eur Spine Soc Eur Spinal Deform Soc Eur Sect Cerv Spine Res Soc 24:1533–1539. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-014-3706-zCrossRef

10.

Samdani AF, Ames RJ, Kimball JS et al (2014) Anterior vertebral body tethering for idiopathic scoliosis: two-year results. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 39:1688–1693. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000000472CrossRefPubMed

11.

Pehlivanoglu T, Oltulu I, Erdag Y et al (2021) Double-sided vertebral body tethering of double adolescent idiopathic scoliosis curves: radiographic outcomes of the first 13 patients with 2 years of follow-up. Eur Spine J Off Publ Eur Spine Soc Eur Spinal Deform Soc Eur Sect Cerv Spine Res Soc. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-021-06745-zCrossRef

12.

Pehlivanoglu T, Oltulu I, Erdag Y et al (2021) Comparison of clinical and functional outcomes of vertebral body tethering to posterior spinal fusion in patients with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis and evaluation of quality of life: preliminary results. Spine Deform. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43390-021-00323-5CrossRefPubMed

13.

Mehkri Y, Hernandez J, McQuerry JL et al (2021) Global spine range of motion in patients with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis before and after corrective surgery. Cureus 13:e19362. https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.19362CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

14.

Baroncini A, Trobisch PD, Berrer A et al (2021) Return to sport and daily life activities after vertebral body tethering for AIS: analysis of the sport activity questionnaire. Eur Spine J Off Publ Eur Spine Soc Eur Spinal Deform Soc Eur Sect Cerv Spine Res Soc 30:1998–2006. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-021-06768-6CrossRef

15.

Nicolini LF, Kobbe P, Seggewiß J et al (2021) Motion preservation surgery for scoliosis with a vertebral body tethering system: a biomechanical study. Eur Spine J Off Publ Eur Spine Soc Eur Spinal Deform Soc Eur Sect Cerv Spine Res Soc. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-021-07035-4CrossRef

16.

Lowe TG, Wilson L, Chien J-T et al (2005) A posterior tether for fusionless modulation of sagittal plane growth in a sheep model. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 30:S69-74. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.brs.0000175175.41471.d4CrossRefPubMed

17.

Pehlivanoglu T, Oltulu I, Ofluoglu E et al (2020) Thoracoscopic vertebral body tethering for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: a minimum of 2 years’ results of 21 patients. J Pediatr Orthop. https://doi.org/10.1097/BPO.0000000000001590CrossRefPubMed

18.

Makurthou AA, Oei L, El Saddy S et al (2013) Scheuermann disease: evaluation of radiological criteria and population prevalence. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 38:1690–1694. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e31829ee8b7CrossRefPubMed

19.

Nault M-L, Parent S, Phan P et al (2010) A modified Risser grading system predicts the curve acceleration phase of female adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 92:1073–1081. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.H.01759CrossRefPubMed

20.

Sanders JO, Browne RH, McConnell SJ et al (2007) Maturity assessment and curve progression in girls with idiopathic scoliosis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 89:64–73. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.F.00067CrossRefPubMed

21.

Newton PO, Kluck DG, Saito W et al (2018) Anterior spinal growth tethering for skeletally immature patients with scoliosis: a retrospective look two to four years postoperatively. J Bone Joint Surg Am 100:1691–1697. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.18.00287CrossRefPubMed

22.

Bezalel T, Carmeli E, Been E, Kalichman L (2014) Scheuermann’s disease: current diagnosis and treatment approach. J Back Musculoskelet Rehabil 27:383–390. https://doi.org/10.3233/BMR-140483CrossRefPubMed

23.

Poolman RW, Been HD, Ubags LH (2002) Clinical outcome and radiographic results after operative treatment of Scheuermann’s disease. Eur Spine J Off Publ Eur Spine Soc Eur Spinal Deform Soc Eur Sect Cerv Spine Res Soc 11:561–569. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-002-0418-6CrossRef

24.

Lonner BS, Newton P, Betz R et al (2007) Operative management of Scheuermann’s kyphosis in 78 patients: radiographic outcomes, complications, and technique. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 32:2644–2652. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e31815a5238CrossRefPubMed

25.

Geck MJ, Macagno A, Ponte A, Shufflebarger HL (2007) The Ponte procedure: posterior only treatment of Scheuermann’s kyphosis using segmental posterior shortening and pedicle screw instrumentation. J Spinal Disord Tech 20:586–593. https://doi.org/10.1097/BSD.0b013e31803d3b16CrossRefPubMed

26.

Aulisa AG, Marsiolo M, Calogero V et al (2023) Long-term outcome after brace treatment of Scheuermann’s kyphosis: an observational controlled cohort study. Eur J Phys Rehabil Med 59:529–534. https://doi.org/10.23736/S1973-9087.23.08070-XCrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

27.

Lowe TG, Line BG (2007) Evidence based medicine: analysis of Scheuermann kyphosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 32:S115–S119. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181354501CrossRefPubMed

28.

Huq S, Ehresman J, Cottrill E et al (2019) Treatment approaches for Scheuermann kyphosis: a systematic review of historic and current management. J Neurosurg Spine 32:235–247. https://doi.org/10.3171/2019.8.SPINE19500CrossRefPubMed

29.

Etemadifar MR, Jamalaldini MH, Layeghi R (2017) Successful brace treatment of Scheuermann’s kyphosis with different angles. J Craniovertebr Junction Spine 8:136–143. https://doi.org/10.4103/jcvjs.JCVJS_38_16CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

30.

Riddle EC, Bowen JR, Shah SA et al (2003) The duPont kyphosis brace for the treatment of adolescent Scheuermann kyphosis. J South Orthop Assoc 12:135–140PubMed

31.

Piazzolla A, Bizzoca D, Solarino G et al (2021) Maria Adelaide brace in the management of Scheuermann’s Kyphosis. Spine Deform 9:549–557. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43390-020-00225-yCrossRefPubMed

32.

Sachs B, Bradford D, Winter R et al (1987) Scheuermann kyphosis. Follow-up of Milwaukee-brace treatment. J Bone Joint Surg Am 69:50–57CrossRefPubMed

33.

Soo CL, Noble PC, Esses SI (2002) Scheuermann kyphosis: long-term follow-up. Spine J 2:49–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1529-9430(01)00168-1CrossRefPubMed

34.

Sharifi P, Kamyab M, Babaee T, Ganjavian MS (2019) Objective monitoring of brace wearing time in adolescents with Scheuermann’s kyphosis. Asian Spine J 13:942–948. https://doi.org/10.31616/asj.2019.0008CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

35.

Rahman T, Bowen JR, Takemitsu M, Scott C (2005) The association between brace compliance and outcome for patients with idiopathic scoliosis. J Pediatr Orthop 25:420–422. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.bpo.0000161097.61586.bbCrossRefPubMed

36.

Newton PO, Farnsworth CL, Faro FD et al (2008) Spinal growth modulation with an anterolateral flexible tether in an immature bovine model: disc health and motion preservation. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 33:724–733. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e31816950a0CrossRefPubMed

37.

Newton PO, Fricka KB, Lee SS et al (2002) Asymmetrical flexible tethering of spine growth in an immature bovine model. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 27:689–693CrossRefPubMed

38.

Braun JT, Ogilvie JW, Akyuz E et al (2004) Fusionless scoliosis correction using a shape memory alloy staple in the anterior thoracic spine of the immature goat. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 29:1980–1989CrossRefPubMed

39.

Newton PO, Bartley CE, Bastrom TP et al (2020) Anterior spinal growth modulation in skeletally immature patients with idiopathic scoliosis: a comparison with posterior spinal fusion at 2 to 5 years postoperatively. J Bone Joint Surg Am. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.19.01176CrossRefPubMed

40.

Denis F, Sun EC, Winter RB (2009) Incidence and risk factors for proximal and distal junctional kyphosis following surgical treatment for Scheuermann kyphosis: minimum five-year follow-up. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 34:E729–E734. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181ae2ab2CrossRefPubMed

41.

Otsuka NY, Hall JE, Mah JY (1990) Posterior fusion for Scheuermann’s kyphosis. Clin Orthop Relat Res 251:134–139CrossRef

42.

Lowe TG, Kasten MD (1994) An analysis of sagittal curves and balance after Cotrel-Dubousset instrumentation for kyphosis secondary to Scheuermann’s disease. A review of 32 patients. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 19:1680–1685. https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-199408000-00005CrossRefPubMed

43.

Cho K-J, Lenke LG, Bridwell KH et al (2009) Selection of the optimal distal fusion level in posterior instrumentation and fusion for thoracic hyperkyphosis: the sagittal stable vertebra concept. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 34:765–770. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e31819e28edCrossRefPubMed

44.

Kim HJ, Nemani V, Boachie-Adjei O et al (2017) Distal fusion level selection in Scheuermann’s kyphosis: a comparison of lordotic disc segment versus the sagittal stable vertebrae. Glob spine J 7:254–259. https://doi.org/10.1177/2192568217699183CrossRef

45.

Schwab FJ, Blondel B, Bess S et al (2013) Radiographical spinopelvic parameters and disability in the setting of adult spinal deformity: a prospective multicenter analysis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 38:E803–E812. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e318292b7b9CrossRefPubMed

46.

Rothenfluh DA, Mueller DA, Rothenfluh E, Min K (2015) Pelvic incidence-lumbar lordosis mismatch predisposes to adjacent segment disease after lumbar spinal fusion. Eur Spine J Off Publ Eur Spine Soc Eur Spinal Deform Soc Eur Sect Cerv Spine Res Soc 24:1251–1258. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-014-3454-0CrossRef

47.

Jiang L, Qiu Y, Xu L et al (2014) Sagittal spinopelvic alignment in adolescents associated with Scheuermann’s kyphosis: a comparison with normal population. Eur Spine J Off Publ Eur Spine Soc Eur Spinal Deform Soc Eur Sect Cerv Spine Res Soc 23:1420–1426. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-014-3266-2CrossRef

48.

Loder RT (2001) The sagittal profile of the cervical and lumbosacral spine in Scheuermann thoracic kyphosis. J Spinal Disord 14:226–231. https://doi.org/10.1097/00002517-200106000-00007CrossRefPubMed

49.

Ashraf A, Noelle Larson A, Polly DW et al (2014) Change in sagittal plane alignment following surgery for Scheuermann’s kyphosis. Spine Deform 2:404–409. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jspd.2014.04.013CrossRefPubMed

50.

Samdani AF, Pahys JM, Ames RJ et al (2021) Prospective follow-up report on anterior vertebral body tethering for idiopathic scoliosis: interim results from an FDA IDE study. J Bone Joint Surg Am 103:1611–1619. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.20.01503CrossRefPubMed

51.

Trobisch P, Baroncini A, Berrer A, Da Paz S (2022) Difference between radiographically suspected and intraoperatively confirmed tether breakages after vertebral body tethering for idiopathic scoliosis. Eur Spine J Off Publ Eur Spine Soc Eur Spinal Deform Soc Eur Sect Cerv Spine Res Soc. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-021-07107-5CrossRef

Title: Flexible posterior vertebral tethering for the management of Scheuermann’s kyphosis: correction by using growth modulation—clinical and radiographic outcomes of the first 10 patients with at least 3 years of follow-up
Authors: Mehmet Aydogan
Tuna Pehlivanoglu
Yigit Erdag
Umut Dogu Akturk
Abdulhalim Akar
Publication date: 14-05-2024
Publisher: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in: European Spine Journal
Print ISSN: 0940-6719
Electronic ISSN: 1432-0932
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-024-08297-4

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Flexible posterior vertebral tethering for the management of Scheuermann’s kyphosis: correction by using growth modulation—clinical and radiographic outcomes of the first 10 patients with at least 3 years of follow-up

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Level of evidence

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Level of evidence

Please log in to get access to this content