4.4 Article

Shoulder balance after surgery in patients with Lenke Type 2 scoliosis corrected with the segmental pedicle screw technique

期刊

JOURNAL OF NEUROSURGERY-SPINE
卷 10, 期 3, 页码 214-219

出版社

AMER ASSOC NEUROLOGICAL SURGEONS
DOI: 10.3171/2008.11.SPINE08524

关键词

idiopathic double structural thoracic scoliosis; segmental pedicle screw instrumentation; shoulder balance

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Object. The authors evaluated the effectiveness of Lenke Type 2 criteria in scoliosis correction with the segmental pedicle screw (PS) technique, with emphasis on shoulder balance. Methods. Twenty-five consecutive patients with Lenke Type 2 scoliosis (structural double thoracic curves, side-bending Cobb angle > 25 degrees, or T2-5 kyphosis > 20 degrees) who underwent segmental PS instrumentation were included in this study. At surgery, the patients were an average of 14.1 years of age, and the average duration of follow-up was 2.9 years. For radiological evaluation of the patients, preoperative, postoperative, and the latest available follow-up radiographs were used. The difference between right and left shoulder heights was determined to assess shoulder balance. All patients were treated with fusion of both the proximal and distal curves. Results. The mean preoperative proximal thoracic curve of 43 degrees was corrected to 21 degrees postoperatively, a 51.2% correction. The preoperative lower thoracic curve of 61 degrees was corrected to 23 degrees, for a 62.3% correction. The preoperative shoulder height difference of -5.92 +/- 12.52 mm (range: -31 to +14 mm, negative designating a lower left shoulder) was improved to 1.52 +/- 8.12 mm. Postoperatively, no patient had significant or moderate shoulder imbalance, 4 patients had minimal shoulder imbalance, and 21 patients had balanced shoulders. Conclusions. Although Lenke Type 2 criteria were developed wth Cotrel-Dubousset instrumentation, they are successfully applied to determining thoracic fusion when segmental PS instrumentation is used. (DOI: 10.3171/2008.11.SPINE08524)

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据