Posterior spinal fusion versus vertebral body tethering for paediatric scoliosis: a meta-analysis of comparative studies.

Abstract

Purpose: Posterior spinal fusion (PSF) is currently the gold standard technique for surgical correction of scoliosis however, there is a growing interest in non-fusion techniques like vertebral body tethering (VBT). The aim of this study is to compare surgical outcomes between PSF and VBT.

Methods: This systematic review was performed as per the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) Guidelines with a search of the following databases to identify all comparative studies: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL).

Results: A total of 11 comparative studies with 1112 patients were included. PSF offered significantly greater percentage coronal curve correction postoperatively (P = 0.0001) and at 2 years (P < 0.00001). Time to revision (P = 0.03), number of instrumented levels (P < 0.0001), estimated blood loss (EBL) (P = 0.001), operation duration (OD) (P < 0.00001) and postoperative shoulder height difference (P < 0.00001) were significantly greater in the PSF group. Odds of unplanned surgical revisions were lower in the PSF group (P < 0.0001). Secondary outcome data showed that VBT patients had significantly lower preoperative cobb angles (P < 0.00001), a younger age at surgery (P = 0.002), less postoperative pain (P = 0.002) and lower opioid consumption (P = 0.02). VBT tether breakage events were reported at rates of 13-23%. VBT also offered faster return to sports and greater lumbar flexibility. No significant difference was seen in length of hospital stay (P < 0.05).

Conclusion: PSF and VBT are viable treatment options with different pros and cons. Choice of treatment should consider individual patient characteristics and daily requirements.