Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research® 6/2014

Open Access 01-06-2014 | Symposium: Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery

Is Circumferential Minimally Invasive Surgery Effective in the Treatment of Moderate Adult Idiopathic Scoliosis?

Authors: Neel Anand, MD, MchOrth, Eli M. Baron, MD, Babak Khandehroo, MD

Published in: Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research® | Issue 6/2014

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Outcomes for minimally invasive scoliosis correction surgery have been reported for mild adult scoliosis. Larger curves historically have been treated with open surgical procedures including facet resections or posterior column osteotomies, which have been associated with high-volume blood loss. Further, minimally invasive techniques have been largely reported in the setting of degenerative scoliosis.

Questions/purposes

We describe the effects of circumferential minimally invasive surgery (cMIS) for moderate to severe scoliosis in terms of (1) operative time and blood loss, (2) overall health and disease-specific patient-reported outcomes, (3) deformity correction and fusion rate, and (4) frequency and types of complications.

Methods

Between January 2007 and January 2012, we performed 50 cMIS adult idiopathic scoliosis corrections in patients with a Cobb angle of greater than 30° but less than 75° who did not have prior thoracolumbar fusion surgery; this series represented all patients we treated surgically during that time meeting those indications. Our general indications for this approach during that period were increasing back pain unresponsive to nonoperative therapy with cosmetic and radiographic worsening of curves. Surgical times and estimated blood loss were recorded. Functional clinical outcomes including VAS pain score, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and SF-36 were recorded preoperatively and postoperatively. Patients’ deformity correction was assessed on pre- and postoperative 36-inch (91-cm) standing films and fusion was assessed on CT scan. Minimum followup was 24 months (mean, 48 months; range, 24–77 months).

Results

Mean blood loss was 613 mL for one-stage surgery and 763 mL for two-stage surgery. Mean operative time was 351 minutes for one-stage surgery and 482 minutes for two-stage surgery. At last followup, mean VAS and ODI scores decreased from 5.7 and 44 preoperatively to 2.9 and 22 (p < 0.001 and 0.03, respectively) and mean SF-36 score increased from 48 preoperatively to 74 (p = 0.026). Mean Cobb angle and sagittal vertical axis decreased from 42° and 51 mm preoperatively to 16° and 27 mm postoperatively (both p < 0.001). An 88% fusion rate was confirmed on CT scan. Perioperative complications occurred in 11 of the 50 patients (22%), with delayed complications needing further surgery in 10 more patients at last followup.

Conclusions

cMIS provides for good clinical and radiographic outcomes for moderate (30°–75°) adult idiopathic scoliosis. Patients undergoing cMIS should be carefully selected to avoid fixed, rigid deformities and a preoperative sagittal vertical axis of greater than 10 cm; surgeons should consider alternative techniques in those patients.

Level of Evidence

Level IV, therapeutic study. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Akbarnia BA, Ogilvie JW, Hammerberg KW. Debate: degenerative scoliosis: to operate or not to operate. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2006;31(19 suppl):S195–S201.CrossRef Akbarnia BA, Ogilvie JW, Hammerberg KW. Debate: degenerative scoliosis: to operate or not to operate. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2006;31(19 suppl):S195–S201.CrossRef
2.
go back to reference Anand N, Baron EM, Bray RS. Benefits of the paraspinal muscle-sparing approach versus the conventional midline approach for posterior nonfusion stabilization: comparative analysis of clinical and functional outcomes SAS J. 2007;1:93–99.CrossRef Anand N, Baron EM, Bray RS. Benefits of the paraspinal muscle-sparing approach versus the conventional midline approach for posterior nonfusion stabilization: comparative analysis of clinical and functional outcomes SAS J. 2007;1:93–99.CrossRef
3.
go back to reference Anand N, Baron EM, Khandehroo B. Does minimally invasive transsacral fixation provide anterior column support in adult scoliosis? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2013 November 6 [Epub ahead of print]. Anand N, Baron EM, Khandehroo B. Does minimally invasive transsacral fixation provide anterior column support in adult scoliosis? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2013 November 6 [Epub ahead of print].
4.
go back to reference Anand N, Baron EM, Khandehroo B, Kahwaty S. Long-term 2- to 5-year clinical and functional outcomes of minimally invasive surgery for adult scoliosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2013;38:1566–1575.CrossRef Anand N, Baron EM, Khandehroo B, Kahwaty S. Long-term 2- to 5-year clinical and functional outcomes of minimally invasive surgery for adult scoliosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2013;38:1566–1575.CrossRef
5.
go back to reference Anand N, Baron EM, Thaiyananthan G, Khalsa K, Goldstein TB. Minimally invasive multilevel percutaneous correction and fusion for adult lumbar degenerative scoliosis: a technique and feasibility study. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2008;21:459–467.PubMedCrossRef Anand N, Baron EM, Thaiyananthan G, Khalsa K, Goldstein TB. Minimally invasive multilevel percutaneous correction and fusion for adult lumbar degenerative scoliosis: a technique and feasibility study. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2008;21:459–467.PubMedCrossRef
6.
go back to reference Anand N, Khanderoo B, Baron EM, Kahwaty S. Limitations and ceiling effects of circumferential minimally invasive surgical (cMIS) techniques for the treatment of adult scoliosis—analysis of a 6-year experience. Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Society for Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery. Las Vegas, NV; 2013. Anand N, Khanderoo B, Baron EM, Kahwaty S. Limitations and ceiling effects of circumferential minimally invasive surgical (cMIS) techniques for the treatment of adult scoliosis—analysis of a 6-year experience. Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Society for Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery. Las Vegas, NV; 2013.
7.
go back to reference Anand N, Khanderoo B, Kahwaty S, Baron EM. Is there a limitation to correction of sagittal balance with circumferential minimally invasive surgical (CMIS) correction of adult spinal deformity (ASD)? Presented at the North American Spine Society 28th Annual Meeting. New Orleans, LA; 2013. Anand N, Khanderoo B, Kahwaty S, Baron EM. Is there a limitation to correction of sagittal balance with circumferential minimally invasive surgical (CMIS) correction of adult spinal deformity (ASD)? Presented at the North American Spine Society 28th Annual Meeting. New Orleans, LA; 2013.
8.
go back to reference Anand N, Rosemann R, Khalsa B, Baron EM. Mid-term to long-term clinical and functional outcomes of minimally invasive correction and fusion for adults with scoliosis. Neurosurg Focus. 2010;28:E6.PubMedCrossRef Anand N, Rosemann R, Khalsa B, Baron EM. Mid-term to long-term clinical and functional outcomes of minimally invasive correction and fusion for adults with scoliosis. Neurosurg Focus. 2010;28:E6.PubMedCrossRef
10.
go back to reference Cho SK, Bridwell KH, Lenke LG, Cho W, Zebala LP, Pahys JM, Kang MM, Yi JS, Baldus CR. Comparative analysis of clinical outcome and complications in primary versus revision adult scoliosis surgery. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2012;37:393–401. Cho SK, Bridwell KH, Lenke LG, Cho W, Zebala LP, Pahys JM, Kang MM, Yi JS, Baldus CR. Comparative analysis of clinical outcome and complications in primary versus revision adult scoliosis surgery. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2012;37:393–401.
11.
go back to reference Deukmedjian AR, Dakwar E, Ahmadian A, Smith DA, Uribe JS. Early outcomes of minimally invasive anterior longitudinal ligament release for correction of sagittal imbalance in patients with adult spinal deformity. ScientificWorldJournal. 2012;2012: 789698.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef Deukmedjian AR, Dakwar E, Ahmadian A, Smith DA, Uribe JS. Early outcomes of minimally invasive anterior longitudinal ligament release for correction of sagittal imbalance in patients with adult spinal deformity. ScientificWorldJournal. 2012;2012: 789698.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
12.
go back to reference Eck JC, Hodges S, Humphreys SC. Minimally invasive lumbar spinal fusion. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2007;15:321–329.PubMed Eck JC, Hodges S, Humphreys SC. Minimally invasive lumbar spinal fusion. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2007;15:321–329.PubMed
13.
go back to reference Glassman SD, Berven S, Bridwell K, Horton W, Dimar JR. Correlation of radiographic parameters and clinical symptoms in adult scoliosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2005;30:682–688.CrossRef Glassman SD, Berven S, Bridwell K, Horton W, Dimar JR. Correlation of radiographic parameters and clinical symptoms in adult scoliosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2005;30:682–688.CrossRef
14.
go back to reference Glassman SD, Bridwell K, Dimar JR, Horton W, Berven S, Schwab F. The impact of positive sagittal balance in adult spinal deformity. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2005;30:2024–2029. Glassman SD, Bridwell K, Dimar JR, Horton W, Berven S, Schwab F. The impact of positive sagittal balance in adult spinal deformity. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2005;30:2024–2029.
15.
go back to reference Guay J, Haig M, Lortie L, Guertin MC, Poitras B. Predicting blood loss in surgery for idiopathic scoliosis. Can J Anaesth. 1994;41:775–781.PubMedCrossRef Guay J, Haig M, Lortie L, Guertin MC, Poitras B. Predicting blood loss in surgery for idiopathic scoliosis. Can J Anaesth. 1994;41:775–781.PubMedCrossRef
16.
go back to reference Isaacs RE, Hyde J, Goodrich JA, Rodgers WB, Phillips FM. A prospective, nonrandomized, multicenter evaluation of extreme lateral interbody fusion for the treatment of adult degenerative scoliosis: perioperative outcomes and complications. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2010;35(26 suppl):S322–S330.CrossRef Isaacs RE, Hyde J, Goodrich JA, Rodgers WB, Phillips FM. A prospective, nonrandomized, multicenter evaluation of extreme lateral interbody fusion for the treatment of adult degenerative scoliosis: perioperative outcomes and complications. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2010;35(26 suppl):S322–S330.CrossRef
17.
go back to reference Karikari IO, Isaacs RE. Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a review of techniques and outcomes. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2010;35(26 suppl):S294–S301. Karikari IO, Isaacs RE. Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a review of techniques and outcomes. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2010;35(26 suppl):S294–S301.
18.
go back to reference Kasliwal MK, Smith JS, Shaffrey CI, Carreon LY, Glassman SD, Schwab F, Lafage V, Fu KM, Bridwell KH. Does prior short-segment surgery for adult scoliosis impact perioperative complication rates and clinical outcome among patients undergoing scoliosis correction? J Neurosurg Spine. 2012;17:128–133.PubMedCrossRef Kasliwal MK, Smith JS, Shaffrey CI, Carreon LY, Glassman SD, Schwab F, Lafage V, Fu KM, Bridwell KH. Does prior short-segment surgery for adult scoliosis impact perioperative complication rates and clinical outcome among patients undergoing scoliosis correction? J Neurosurg Spine. 2012;17:128–133.PubMedCrossRef
19.
go back to reference Lehman RA, Jr., Vaccaro AR, Bertagnoli R, Kuklo TR. Standard and minimally invasive approaches to the spine. Orthop Clin North Am. 2005;36:281–292.PubMedCrossRef Lehman RA, Jr., Vaccaro AR, Bertagnoli R, Kuklo TR. Standard and minimally invasive approaches to the spine. Orthop Clin North Am. 2005;36:281–292.PubMedCrossRef
20.
go back to reference Mundis GM, Akbarnia BA, Phillips FM. Adult deformity correction through minimally invasive lateral approach techniques. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2010;35(26 suppl):S312–S321.CrossRef Mundis GM, Akbarnia BA, Phillips FM. Adult deformity correction through minimally invasive lateral approach techniques. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2010;35(26 suppl):S312–S321.CrossRef
22.
go back to reference Silva FE, Lenke LG. Adult degenerative scoliosis: evaluation and management. Neurosurg Focus. 2010;28:E1.PubMedCrossRef Silva FE, Lenke LG. Adult degenerative scoliosis: evaluation and management. Neurosurg Focus. 2010;28:E1.PubMedCrossRef
23.
go back to reference Tian NF, Wu YS, Zhang XL, Xu HZ, Chi YL, Mao FM. Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a meta-analysis based on the current evidence. Eur Spine J. 2013;22:1741–1749.PubMedCrossRef Tian NF, Wu YS, Zhang XL, Xu HZ, Chi YL, Mao FM. Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a meta-analysis based on the current evidence. Eur Spine J. 2013;22:1741–1749.PubMedCrossRef
24.
go back to reference Trobisch P, Suess O, Schwab F. Idiopathic scoliosis. Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2010;107:875–883; quiz 884. Trobisch P, Suess O, Schwab F. Idiopathic scoliosis. Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2010;107:875–883; quiz 884.
25.
go back to reference Wang MY, Mummaneni PV. Minimally invasive surgery for thoracolumbar spinal deformity: initial clinical experience with clinical and radiographic outcomes. Neurosurg Focus. 2010;28:E9.PubMedCrossRef Wang MY, Mummaneni PV. Minimally invasive surgery for thoracolumbar spinal deformity: initial clinical experience with clinical and radiographic outcomes. Neurosurg Focus. 2010;28:E9.PubMedCrossRef
26.
go back to reference Yadla S, Maltenfort MG, Ratliff JK, Harrop JS. Adult scoliosis surgery outcomes: a systematic review. Neurosurg Focus. 2010;28:E3.PubMedCrossRef Yadla S, Maltenfort MG, Ratliff JK, Harrop JS. Adult scoliosis surgery outcomes: a systematic review. Neurosurg Focus. 2010;28:E3.PubMedCrossRef
27.
go back to reference Yu X, Xiao H, Wang R, Huang Y. Prediction of massive blood loss in scoliosis surgery from preoperative variables. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2013;38:350–355.CrossRef Yu X, Xiao H, Wang R, Huang Y. Prediction of massive blood loss in scoliosis surgery from preoperative variables. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2013;38:350–355.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Is Circumferential Minimally Invasive Surgery Effective in the Treatment of Moderate Adult Idiopathic Scoliosis?
Authors
Neel Anand, MD, MchOrth
Eli M. Baron, MD
Babak Khandehroo, MD
Publication date
01-06-2014
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research® / Issue 6/2014
Print ISSN: 0009-921X
Electronic ISSN: 1528-1132
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-014-3565-2

Other articles of this Issue 6/2014

Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research® 6/2014 Go to the issue

Reply to the Letter to the Editor

Reply to the Letter to the Editor

Reply to the Letter to the Editor

Reply to the Letter to the Editor