Sublaminar fixation versus hooks and pedicle screws in scoliosis surgery for Marfan syndrome
Background: In patients with Marfan syndrome (MFS), surgical correction of spinal deformities with hooks and/or pedicle screws involves a higher rate of complications than in patients with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Therefore, sublaminar instrumentation is often a last resort option. This stud...
| Main Authors: | , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Wolters Kluwer Medknow Publications
2020-01-01
|
| Series: | Journal of Craniovertebral Junction and Spine |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://www.jcvjs.com/article.asp?issn=0974-8237;year=2020;volume=11;issue=1;spage=26;epage=30;aulast=Rava |
| _version_ | 1818153423048015872 |
|---|---|
| author | Alessandro Rava Eugenio Dema Matteo Palmisani Rosa Palmisani Stefano Cervellati Massimo Girardo |
| author_facet | Alessandro Rava Eugenio Dema Matteo Palmisani Rosa Palmisani Stefano Cervellati Massimo Girardo |
| author_sort | Alessandro Rava |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Background: In patients with Marfan syndrome (MFS), surgical correction of spinal deformities with hooks and/or pedicle screws involves a higher rate of complications than in patients with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Therefore, sublaminar instrumentation is often a last resort option. This study wants to assess the ability of sublaminar fixation to achieve three-dimensional scoliosis correction and spine stabilization compared with hook and/or pedicle screw systems.
Methods: Twenty-one MFS patients who underwent posterior spinal fusion at a highly specialized medical center in 1995–2017 were divided into two different groups retrospectively evaluated at a minimum follow-up of 2 years. Group 1 (8 patients) was composed by hooks and screws instrumentation, while Group 2 (13 patients) was composed by hook or pedicle screw system associated to sublaminar wires/bands. Radiological (correction and long-term stability) and general endpoints (mean blood loss, surgery time, and complications) were compared between the groups.
Results: The degree of correction compared with the preoperative status was satisfactory with both approaches, although the difference between them was not significant. No significant differences were found for general endpoints between groups.
Conclusion: Our data suggest that scoliosis correction with sublaminar fixation is not inferior to treatment with hooks and/or pedicle screws.
Level of Evidence: III. |
| first_indexed | 2024-12-11T14:10:22Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-4baded6f2923412299de72fed24de3c1 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 0974-8237 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-12-11T14:10:22Z |
| publishDate | 2020-01-01 |
| publisher | Wolters Kluwer Medknow Publications |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Journal of Craniovertebral Junction and Spine |
| spelling | doaj.art-4baded6f2923412299de72fed24de3c12022-12-22T01:03:28ZengWolters Kluwer Medknow PublicationsJournal of Craniovertebral Junction and Spine0974-82372020-01-01111263010.4103/jcvjs.JCVJS_12_20Sublaminar fixation versus hooks and pedicle screws in scoliosis surgery for Marfan syndromeAlessandro RavaEugenio DemaMatteo PalmisaniRosa PalmisaniStefano CervellatiMassimo GirardoBackground: In patients with Marfan syndrome (MFS), surgical correction of spinal deformities with hooks and/or pedicle screws involves a higher rate of complications than in patients with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Therefore, sublaminar instrumentation is often a last resort option. This study wants to assess the ability of sublaminar fixation to achieve three-dimensional scoliosis correction and spine stabilization compared with hook and/or pedicle screw systems. Methods: Twenty-one MFS patients who underwent posterior spinal fusion at a highly specialized medical center in 1995–2017 were divided into two different groups retrospectively evaluated at a minimum follow-up of 2 years. Group 1 (8 patients) was composed by hooks and screws instrumentation, while Group 2 (13 patients) was composed by hook or pedicle screw system associated to sublaminar wires/bands. Radiological (correction and long-term stability) and general endpoints (mean blood loss, surgery time, and complications) were compared between the groups. Results: The degree of correction compared with the preoperative status was satisfactory with both approaches, although the difference between them was not significant. No significant differences were found for general endpoints between groups. Conclusion: Our data suggest that scoliosis correction with sublaminar fixation is not inferior to treatment with hooks and/or pedicle screws. Level of Evidence: III.http://www.jcvjs.com/article.asp?issn=0974-8237;year=2020;volume=11;issue=1;spage=26;epage=30;aulast=Ravaarthrodesisfixationhybrid constructsscoliosisscrews |
| spellingShingle | Alessandro Rava Eugenio Dema Matteo Palmisani Rosa Palmisani Stefano Cervellati Massimo Girardo Sublaminar fixation versus hooks and pedicle screws in scoliosis surgery for Marfan syndrome Journal of Craniovertebral Junction and Spine arthrodesis fixation hybrid constructs scoliosis screws |
| title | Sublaminar fixation versus hooks and pedicle screws in scoliosis surgery for Marfan syndrome |
| title_full | Sublaminar fixation versus hooks and pedicle screws in scoliosis surgery for Marfan syndrome |
| title_fullStr | Sublaminar fixation versus hooks and pedicle screws in scoliosis surgery for Marfan syndrome |
| title_full_unstemmed | Sublaminar fixation versus hooks and pedicle screws in scoliosis surgery for Marfan syndrome |
| title_short | Sublaminar fixation versus hooks and pedicle screws in scoliosis surgery for Marfan syndrome |
| title_sort | sublaminar fixation versus hooks and pedicle screws in scoliosis surgery for marfan syndrome |
| topic | arthrodesis fixation hybrid constructs scoliosis screws |
| url | http://www.jcvjs.com/article.asp?issn=0974-8237;year=2020;volume=11;issue=1;spage=26;epage=30;aulast=Rava |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT alessandrorava sublaminarfixationversushooksandpediclescrewsinscoliosissurgeryformarfansyndrome AT eugeniodema sublaminarfixationversushooksandpediclescrewsinscoliosissurgeryformarfansyndrome AT matteopalmisani sublaminarfixationversushooksandpediclescrewsinscoliosissurgeryformarfansyndrome AT rosapalmisani sublaminarfixationversushooksandpediclescrewsinscoliosissurgeryformarfansyndrome AT stefanocervellati sublaminarfixationversushooksandpediclescrewsinscoliosissurgeryformarfansyndrome AT massimogirardo sublaminarfixationversushooksandpediclescrewsinscoliosissurgeryformarfansyndrome |