Instrumentation constructs in pediatric patients undergoing deformity correction correlated with scoliosis research society scores

Spine

Volumn 36, Issue 20, 2011, Pages 1692-1700

  Lubicky, John P ^a,b   Hanson, Jean E ^c   Riley, Elizabeth H ^d  

^a WEST VIRGINIA UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b Medtronic Spine   (United States)

^c PhDx Systems   (United States)

^d INDIANA UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

instrumentation constructs; Prospective Pediatric Scoliosis Study; scoliosis; Scoliosis Research Society scores; spinal deformity; Spinal Deformity Study Group

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; CHILD; CHILDHOOD DISEASE; FEMALE; FOLLOW UP; FUNCTIONAL STATUS; HOSPITALIZED CHILD; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MEDICAL INSTRUMENTATION; PAIN ASSESSMENT; PATIENT SATISFACTION; PEDICLE SCREW; PERSONAL APPEARANCE; PHYSICAL ACTIVITY; PREOPERATIVE EVALUATION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; QUALITY OF LIFE; SCOLIOSIS; SCOLIOSIS RESEARCH SOCIETY SCORE; SCORING SYSTEM; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

ADOLESCENT; CHILD; FEMALE; FOLLOW-UP STUDIES; HUMANS; INTERNAL FIXATORS; MALE; POSTOPERATIVE COMPLICATIONS; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; PROSTHESIS IMPLANTATION; QUALITY OF LIFE; SCOLIOSIS; SPINAL FUSION; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 80052667546     PISSN: 03622436     EISSN: 15281159     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3182102c6a     Document Type: Article

References (39)

1. Chan CY, Kwan MK, Saw LB, et al. Post-operative health related quality of life assessment in scoliosis patients. Med J Malaysia 2008; 63: 137-9.
2. D'Andrea LP, Betz RR, Lenke LG, et al. Do radiographic parameters correlate with clinical outcomes in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis? Spine 2000; 25: 1795-802. (Pubitemid 30469657)
3. Merola AA, Haher TR, Brkaric M, et al. A multicenter study of the outcomes of the surgical treatment of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis using the Scoliosis Research Society (SRS) outcome instrument. Spine 2002; 27: 2046-51.
4. Danielsson AJ. What impact does spinal deformity correction for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis make on quality of life? [review]. Spine 2007; 32 (19 Suppl): S101-8. (Pubitemid 47341036)
5. Helenius I, Remes V, Lambert T, et al. Long-term health-related quality of life after surgery for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis and spondylolisthesis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2008; 90: 1231-9. (Pubitemid 351778129)
6. Asher M, Lai SM, Burton D, Manna B. Scoliosis Research Society-22 patient questionnaire responsiveness to change associated with surgical treatment. Spine 2003; 28: 70-3. (Pubitemid 36070776)
7. Bago J, Pérez-Grueso FJS, Les E, et al. Sensitivity of the SRS-22 questionnaire to the changes associated with surgery [abstract]. Euro Spine J 2009; 18: 139.
8. Wilson PL, Newton PO, Wenger DR, et al. A multicenter study analyzing the relationship of a standardized radiographic scoring system of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis and the Scoliosis Research Society outcomes instrument. Spine 2002; 27: 2036-40.
9. Watanabe K, Lenke LG, Bridwell KH, et al. Cross-cultural comparison of the Scoliosis Research Society outcome instrument between American and Japanese idiopathic scoliosis patients: are there differences? Spine 2007; 32: 2711-4. (Pubitemid 350135384)
10. Cheng I, Kim Y, Gupta MC, et al. Apical sublaminar wires versus pedicle screws-which provides better results for surgical correction of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis? Spine 2005; 30: 2104-12. (Pubitemid 41362374)
11. Dobbs MB, Lenke LG, Kim YJ, et al. Selective posterior thoracic fusions for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Spine 2006; 31: 2400-04.
12. Kim YJ, Lenke LG, Cho SK, et al. Comparative analysis of pedicle screw versus hook instrumentation in the posterior spinal fusion of adolescent Idiopathic scoliosis. Spine 2004; 29: 2040-8. (Pubitemid 40202276)
13. Lehman RA Jr, Lenke LG, Keeler KA, et al. Operative treatment of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis with posterior pedicle screw-only constructs: minimum three-year follow-up of one hundred fourteen cases. Spine 2008; 33: 1598-1604.
14. Lenke LG, Richards S, Stanitski CL. Debate: resolved, a 55 ° right thoracic adolescent idiopathic scoliotic curve should be treated by posterior spinal fusion and segmental instrumentation using thoracic pedicle screws. J Pediatr Orthop 2004; 24: 329-41. (Pubitemid 38580490)
15. Liljenqvist U, Lepsien U, Hackenberg L, et al. Comparative analysis of pedicle screw and hook instrumentation in posterior correction and fusion of idiopathic thoracic scoliosis. Eur Spine J 2002; 11: 336-43. (Pubitemid 34983936)
16. Lowenstein JE, Matsumoto H, Vitale MG, et al. Coronal and sagittal plane correction in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Spine 2007; 32: 448-52.
17. Lubicky JP, Hanson JE, Riley EH, Spinal Deformity Study Group. Instrumentation patterns in the operative treatment of pediatric scoliosis. Presented at the Spinal Deformity Study Group Meeting. Chicago, IL. December, 2007.
18. Mulpuri K, Perdios A, Reilly CW. Evidence-based medicine analysis of all pedicle screw constructs in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Spine 2007; 32 (Suppl): 109-14.
19. Potter BK, Kuklo TR, Lenke LG. Radiographic outcomes of anterior spinal fusion versus posterior spinal fusion with thoracic pedicle screws for treatment of Lenke type I adolescent idiopathic scoliosis curves. Spine 2005; 30: 1859-66. (Pubitemid 41208831)
20. Robitaille M, Aubin C-E, Labelle H. Effects of alternative instrumentation strategies in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: a biomechanical analysis. J Orthop Res 2009; 27: 104-13.
21. Brown CA, Lenke LG, Bridwell KH, et al. Complications of pediatric thoracolumbar and lumbar pedicle screws. Spine 1998; 23: 1566-71. (Pubitemid 28459961)
22. Diab M, Smith AR, Kuklo TR, et al. Neural complication in the surgical treatment of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Spine 2007; 32: 2759-63. (Pubitemid 350135392)
23. DiSilvestre M, Parisini P, Lolli F, et al. Complications of pedicle screws in scoliosis treatment. Spine 2007; 32: 1655-61. (Pubitemid 47051850)
24. Kim YJ, Lenke LG, Bridwell KH, et al. Proximal junctional kyphosis in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis after 3 different types of posterior segmental spinal instrumentation and fusions: incidence and risk factor analysis of 410 cases. Spine 2007; 32: 2731-8. (Pubitemid 350135388)
25. Kuklo TR, Potter BK, Lenke LG, et al. Surgical revision rates of hooks versus hybrid versus screws versus combined anteroposterior spinal fusion for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Spine 2007; 32: 2258-64. (Pubitemid 47415110)
26. Rihn JA, Lee JY, Ward WT. Infection after the surgical treatment of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: evaluation of the diagnosis, treatment, and impact on clinical outcomes. Spine 2008; 33: 289-94. (Pubitemid 351322935)
27. Suk SI, Kim WJ, Lee SM, et al. Thoracic pedicle screw fixation in spinal deformities: are they really safe? Spine 2001; 26: 2049-57.
28. Diab M, Lubicky JP, Sanders JO, et al. Patient self-assessment of appearance is improved more by all pedicle screw than by hybrid constructs in the surgical treatment of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Presented at the Spinal Deformity Study Group Meeting, Scottsdale, AZ, April 2009
29. Upasani VV, Caltoum C, Petcharaporn M, et al. Adolescent idio-pathic scoliosis patients report increased pain at five years compared with two years after surgical treatment. Spine 2008; 33: 1107-12. (Pubitemid 351630221)
30. Smith PL, Donaldson S, Hedden D, et al. Parents' and patients' perceptions of post-operative appearance in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Spine 2006; 31: 2367-74. (Pubitemid 44423537)
31. Watanbe K, Hasegawa K, Hirano T, et al. Evaluation of postoperative residual spinal deformity and patient outcome in idiopathic scoliosis patients in Japan using the Scoliosis Research Society outcomes instrument. Spine 2007; 32: 550-4. (Pubitemid 46398921)
32. Asher MA, Lai SM, Glattes RC, et al. Refinement of the SRS-22 Health-Related Quality of Life questionnaire function domain. Spine 2006; 31: 593-7.
33. Sanders JO, Polly DW, Cats-Baril W, et al. Spinal Deformity Study Group. Analysis of patient and parent assessment of deformity in idiopathic scoliosis using the Walter Reed Visual Assessment Scale. Spine 2003; 28: 2158-63. (Pubitemid 37140207)
34. Sanders JO, Harrast JJ, Kuklo TR, et al. Spinal Deformity Study Group. The spinal appearance questionnaire: results of reliability, validity, and responsiveness testing in patients with idiopathic scoliosis. Spine 2007; 32: 2719-22. (Pubitemid 350135386)
35. Carreon L Y, Sanders JO, Diab M, et al. Spinal Deformity Study Group. The minimum clinically important difference in the Scoliosis Research Society-22 Appearance, Activity, and Pain domains after surgical correction of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Spine 2010; 35: 2079-83.
36. Gatchel RJ, Mayer TG. Testing clinically important difference: consensus or conundrum? Spine J 2010; 10: 321-7.
37. Gatchel RJ, Mayer TG. Testing minimal clinically important difference: additional comments and scientific reality testing. Spine J 2010; 10: 330-2.
38. Gatchel RJ, Lurie JD, Mayer TG. Minimal clinically important difference. Spine 2010; 35: 1739-43.
39. Glassman SD, Carreon L. Thresholds for health-related quality of life measures: reality testing. Spine J 2010; 10: 328-9.