Julia Todderud, A Noelle Larson, Geoffrey Haft, Ron El-Hawary, Nigel Price, John T Anderson, Ryan Fitzgerald, Gilbert Chan, Baron Lonner, Michael Albert, Daniel Hoernschemeyer, Todd A Milbrandt
{"title":"青少年特发性脊柱侧凸非融合手术的匹配比较：后方动态牵引装置和椎体系绳术。","authors":"Julia Todderud, A Noelle Larson, Geoffrey Haft, Ron El-Hawary, Nigel Price, John T Anderson, Ryan Fitzgerald, Gilbert Chan, Baron Lonner, Michael Albert, Daniel Hoernschemeyer, Todd A Milbrandt","doi":"10.1007/s43390-024-00982-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Two non-fusion devices for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) received HDE approval for clinical use in 2019: posterior dynamic distraction device (PDDD) and vertebral body tethering system (VBT). Although indications are similar, there is no comparative study of these devices. We hypothesize that curve correction will be comparable, but PDDD will have better perioperative metrics.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>AIS PDDD patients were prospectively enrolled in this matched multicenter study. Inclusion criteria were Lenke 1 or 5 curves, preoperative curves 35°-60°, correction to ≤30° on bending radiographs, and kyphosis <55°. Patients were matched by age, sex, Risser, curve type and curve magnitude to a single-center cohort of VBT patients. Results were compared at 2 years.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>20 PDDD patients were matched to 20 VBT patients. Blood loss was higher in the VBT cohort (88 vs. 36 ml, p < 0.001). Operative time and postoperative length of stay were longer in the VBT cohort, 177 vs. 115 min (p < 0.001) (2.9 vs. 1.2 days, p < 0.001). Postoperative curve measurement and correction at 6 months were better in the PDDD cohort (15° vs. 24°, p < 0.001; 68% vs. 50%, p < 0.001). At 1-year, PDDD patients had improved Cobb angles (14° vs. 21°, p = 0.001). At 2 years, a correction was improved in the PDDD cohort, with a curve measurement of 17° for PDDD and 22° for VBT (p = 0.043). At the latest follow-up, 3 PDDD patients and 1 VBT patient underwent revision surgery.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Early results show PDDD demonstrates better index correction, reduced operative time, less blood loss, and shorter length of stay but higher rates of revision compared to a matched cohort of VBT patients at two-year follow-up.</p><p><strong>Level of evidence: </strong>Level II, prospective cohort matched comparative study.</p>","PeriodicalId":21796,"journal":{"name":"Spine deformity","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Matched comparison of non-fusion surgeries for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: posterior dynamic distraction device and vertebral body tethering.\",\"authors\":\"Julia Todderud, A Noelle Larson, Geoffrey Haft, Ron El-Hawary, Nigel Price, John T Anderson, Ryan Fitzgerald, Gilbert Chan, Baron Lonner, Michael Albert, Daniel Hoernschemeyer, Todd A Milbrandt\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s43390-024-00982-0\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Two non-fusion devices for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) received HDE approval for clinical use in 2019: posterior dynamic distraction device (PDDD) and vertebral body tethering system (VBT). Although indications are similar, there is no comparative study of these devices. We hypothesize that curve correction will be comparable, but PDDD will have better perioperative metrics.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>AIS PDDD patients were prospectively enrolled in this matched multicenter study. Inclusion criteria were Lenke 1 or 5 curves, preoperative curves 35°-60°, correction to ≤30° on bending radiographs, and kyphosis <55°. Patients were matched by age, sex, Risser, curve type and curve magnitude to a single-center cohort of VBT patients. Results were compared at 2 years.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>20 PDDD patients were matched to 20 VBT patients. Blood loss was higher in the VBT cohort (88 vs. 36 ml, p < 0.001). Operative time and postoperative length of stay were longer in the VBT cohort, 177 vs. 115 min (p < 0.001) (2.9 vs. 1.2 days, p < 0.001). Postoperative curve measurement and correction at 6 months were better in the PDDD cohort (15° vs. 24°, p < 0.001; 68% vs. 50%, p < 0.001). At 1-year, PDDD patients had improved Cobb angles (14° vs. 21°, p = 0.001). At 2 years, a correction was improved in the PDDD cohort, with a curve measurement of 17° for PDDD and 22° for VBT (p = 0.043). At the latest follow-up, 3 PDDD patients and 1 VBT patient underwent revision surgery.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Early results show PDDD demonstrates better index correction, reduced operative time, less blood loss, and shorter length of stay but higher rates of revision compared to a matched cohort of VBT patients at two-year follow-up.</p><p><strong>Level of evidence: </strong>Level II, prospective cohort matched comparative study.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":21796,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Spine deformity\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Spine deformity\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s43390-024-00982-0\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Spine deformity","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s43390-024-00982-0","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Matched comparison of non-fusion surgeries for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: posterior dynamic distraction device and vertebral body tethering.
Purpose: Two non-fusion devices for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) received HDE approval for clinical use in 2019: posterior dynamic distraction device (PDDD) and vertebral body tethering system (VBT). Although indications are similar, there is no comparative study of these devices. We hypothesize that curve correction will be comparable, but PDDD will have better perioperative metrics.
Methods: AIS PDDD patients were prospectively enrolled in this matched multicenter study. Inclusion criteria were Lenke 1 or 5 curves, preoperative curves 35°-60°, correction to ≤30° on bending radiographs, and kyphosis <55°. Patients were matched by age, sex, Risser, curve type and curve magnitude to a single-center cohort of VBT patients. Results were compared at 2 years.
Results: 20 PDDD patients were matched to 20 VBT patients. Blood loss was higher in the VBT cohort (88 vs. 36 ml, p < 0.001). Operative time and postoperative length of stay were longer in the VBT cohort, 177 vs. 115 min (p < 0.001) (2.9 vs. 1.2 days, p < 0.001). Postoperative curve measurement and correction at 6 months were better in the PDDD cohort (15° vs. 24°, p < 0.001; 68% vs. 50%, p < 0.001). At 1-year, PDDD patients had improved Cobb angles (14° vs. 21°, p = 0.001). At 2 years, a correction was improved in the PDDD cohort, with a curve measurement of 17° for PDDD and 22° for VBT (p = 0.043). At the latest follow-up, 3 PDDD patients and 1 VBT patient underwent revision surgery.
Conclusion: Early results show PDDD demonstrates better index correction, reduced operative time, less blood loss, and shorter length of stay but higher rates of revision compared to a matched cohort of VBT patients at two-year follow-up.
Level of evidence: Level II, prospective cohort matched comparative study.
期刊介绍：
Spine Deformity the official journal of the?Scoliosis Research Society is a peer-refereed publication to disseminate knowledge on basic science and clinical research into the?etiology?biomechanics?treatment?methods and outcomes of all types of?spinal deformities. The international members of the Editorial Board provide a worldwide perspective for the journal's area of interest.The?journal?will enhance the mission of the Society which is to foster the optimal care of all patients with?spine?deformities worldwide. Articles published in?Spine Deformity?are Medline indexed in PubMed.? The journal publishes original articles in the form of clinical and basic research. Spine Deformity will only publish studies that have institutional review board (IRB) or similar ethics committee approval for human and animal studies and have strictly observed these guidelines. The minimum follow-up period for follow-up clinical studies is 24 months.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
