Serdar DEMİRÖZ, Tamer COŞKUN, Yunus ATICI, Alper ÇIRAKLI, Samet BAYRAM, Hakan Serhat YANIK, Sevki EERDEM

Evaluation of the distal adjacent segment after longsegment posterior instrumentation and fusion for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis

Aim: The majority of studies about adjacent segment disease (ASD) in the literature concern adult patients who were operated onbecause of degenerative process-related diseases, such as lumbar instability or lumbar stenosis.Material and Methods: We retrospectively reviewed cases of AIS surgically treated in our institution between 2012 and 2015. Patientswith an increase in the amount of disc degeneration at adjacent segment (AS) (the ASD group) were compared with those with noincrease in degeneration at AS (the non-ASD group).Results:ASD was observed postoperatively in 24 patients (57.1%), and 18 patients (42.9%) had no increase in disc degenerationat the latest follow-up.The mean follow-up was 13 to 34 months, with an average of 22±7.1 months and the lowest instrumentedvertebra for 10 of the patients was L2, and the other 32 patients had L3. The rate of ASD in patients with fusion at T4-L3 wassignificantly higher than for the other instrumentation levels (p < 0.05). All 24 patients in the ASD group had L3 as the lowestinstrumented vertebra (LIV) (p < 0.05).Conclusion: We believe that ASD is present even in short-term follow-up in patients who undergo long-segment fusion at a young agedue to AIS and leaving as many mobile segments as possible will protect from ASD.

PDF

___

1. Hazebroek-Kampschreur AA, Hofman A, Van Dijk AP, et al. Prevalence of trunk abnormalities in eleven-year-old schoolchildren in Rotterdam, The Netherlands. J Pediatr Orthop 1992;12:480-4.
2. Hamill CL, Lenke LG, Bridwell KH. The use of pedicle screw fixation to improve correction in the lumbar spine of patients with idiopathic scoliosis. Is it warranted? Spine 1996;21:1241–9.
3. Ogilvie JW. Historical Aspect of scoliosis. Winter RB, Bredford DS, Lonstein JH, Ogilvie JW. MOE’S Textbook of Scoliosis and Other Spinal Deformities. 3rd Ed, Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company 1995:1-5.
4. Lehman TR, Spratt KF, Tozzi JE. Long-term follow-up of lower lumbar fusion patients. Spine 1987;12:97–104.
5. Lee CK, Langrana NA. Lumbosacral spinal fusion: a biomechanical study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976)1984;9:574-81.
6. Kumar MN, Baklanov A, Chopin D. Correlation between sagittal plane changes and adjacent segment degeneration following lumbar spine fusion. Eur Spine J 2001;10:314–9.
7. RimDC. Quantitative Pfirrmann Disc Degeneration Grading System to Overcome the Limitation of Pfirrmann Disc Degeneration Grade. Korean J Spine 2016;13:1-8.
8. Park P, Garton HJ, Gala VC, et al. Adjacent segment disease after lumbar or lumbosacral fusion: review of the literature. Spine (Phila Pa 1976)2004;29:1938-44.
9. Penta M, Sandhu A, Fraser RD. Magnetic resonance imaging assessment of disc degen-eration 10 years after anterior lumbar inter¬body fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976)1995;20:743-7.
10. Etebar S, Cahill DW. Risk factors for adjacent-segment failure following lumbar fixation with rigid instrumentation for degenerative instability. Division of Neurological Surgery, University of South Florida, Tampa, Florida. J Neurosurg; 1999. 90.pp.163–9.
11. Harrop JS, Youssef JA, Maltenfort M,et al. Lumbar adjacent segment degeneration and disease after arthrodesis and total disc arthro¬plasty. Spine (Phila Pa 1976).2008;33:1701- 7.
12. Edwards CC 2nd, Bridwell KH, Patel A,Rinella AS, Jung Kim Y, Berra AB, et al. Thoracolumbar deformity arthrodesis to L5 in adults: the fate of the L5-S1 disc. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2003;28: 2122-31.
13. Ghiselli G, Wang JC, Bahtia NN, et al. Adjacent segment degeneration in the lumbar spine. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2004;86-A:1497–503.
14. Yang JY, Lee JK, Song HS. The impact of adjacent segment degeneration on the clinical outcome after lumbar spinal fusion. Spine(Phila Pa 1976) 2008:33;503-7.
15. Akamaru T, Kawahara N, Tim Yoon S, et al. Adjacent segment motion after a simu¬lated lumbar fusion in different sagittal alignments: a biomechanical analysis. Spine(Phila Pa 1976) 2003;28:1560-6.
16. Kelly MP, Mok JM, Frisch RF, et al. Adjacent segment motion after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion versus Prodisc-c cervical total disk arthroplasty: analysis from a randomized, controlled trial. Spine(Phila Pa 1976) 2011:36;1171-9.
17. Green DW, Lawhorne TW 3rd, Widmann RF, et al. Long term magnetic resonance imaging follow up demonstrates minimal transitionallevel lumbar disc degeneration after posterior spine fusion for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Spine(Phila Pa 1976) 2011:36;1948-54.
18. Danielsson AJ, Cederlund CG, Ekholm S, et al. The prevalence of disc aging and back pain after fusion extending into the lower lumbarspine. A matched MR study twenty-five years after surgery for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. ActaRadiol 2001:42;187-97.
19. Enercan M, Kahraman S, Cobanoglu M , et al.Selective thoracic fusion provides similar health-related quality of life but can cause more lumbar disc and facet joint degeneration: a comparison of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis patients with normal population 10 years after surgery. Spine Deform 2015:3;469-75.
20. Enercan M, Kahraman S, Yilar S, et al.Does It make a difference to stop fusion at L3 Versus L4 in terms of disc and facet joint degeneration: An MRI Study With Minimum 5 Years Follow-up. Spine Deform 2016:4;237-44.