COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF SPINAL MOBILITY AFTER ANTERIOR AND POSTERIOR INSTRUMENTED FUSION IN PATIENTS WITH IDIOPATHIC SCOLIOSIS
https://doi.org/10.14531/ss2014.2.36-41
Abstract
Objective. To analyze spinal mobility after anterior and posterior instrumented fusion in patients with idiopathic scoliosis, and to compare the obtained data with those in healthy subjects.
Material and Methods. The study included 45 individuals divided into three groups of 15 subjects in each. Group I consisted of patients after anterior spinal fusion, Group II - after posterior spinal fusion, and Group III included healthy individuals. Spinal mobility was assessed using Spinal Mouse device. The obtained data were processed by pairwise comparisons using t-tests.
Results. Results of t-statistic calculation in Groups I and II, compared with those in group of healthy individuals showed that index t is less for 19 out of 32 investigated parameters in the group of the anterior spinal fusion. Comparison of t-statistics of Group I and Group II revealed spine greater mobility in Group I.
Conclusion. Both the anterior and posterior techniques of corrective instrumented fusion result in restrictions of spine mobility. Anterior spinal fusion for scoliosis is preferable from the viewpoint of spine mobility preservation.
About the Authors
Dmitry Evgenyevich Petrenko
Institute of Spine and Joint Pathology n.a. M.I. Sitenko, Kharkov, Ukraine
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Andrey Alekseyevich Mezentsev
Institute of Spine and Joint Pathology n.a. M.I. Sitenko, Kharkov, Ukraine
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Pavel Fedorovich Shchapov
National Technical University “Kharkiv Polytechnic Institute”, Kharkov, Ukraine
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
References
1. Новиков В.Д., Новочадов В.В. Статистические методы в медико-биологическом эксперименте (типовые случаи). Волгоград, 2005.
2. Engsberg JR, Lenke LG, Reitenbach AK, et al. Prospective evaluation of trunk range of motion in adolescents with idiopathic scoliosis undergoing spinal fusion surgery. Spine. 2002; 27: 1346-1354.
3. Engsberg JR, Lenke LG, Uhrich ML, et al. Prospective comparison of gait and trunk range of motion in adolescents with idiopathic thoracic scoliosis undergoing anterior or posterior spinal fusion. Spine. 2003; 28: 1993-2000.
4. Gingsburg HH, Goldstein L, Haake PW, et al. Longitudinal study of back pain in postoperative idiopathic scoliosis: Long-term follow-up: Phase IV. Presented at Scoliosis Research Society 30th Annual Meeting, September 13-16, 1995, Asheville, NC: Paper 48.
5. Graf A, Sturm PF, Hassani S, et al. Motion of the spine pre and post-spinal fusion compared to age-matched: Paper #51. Spine: Affilated Society Meeting Abstracts. 2010:82.
6. Hassani S, Graf A, Krzak J, et al. Assessing spinal motion at different fusion levels in adolescents with idiopathic scoliosis. Biomedical Engineering Faculty Research and Publications. 2012; 1: 163-164.
7. Kellis E, Adamou G, Tzilios G, et al. Reliability of spinal range of motion in healthy boys using a skin-surface device. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2008; 31: 570-576. doi: 10.1016/j.jmpt.2008.09.001.
8. Lenke LG, Edwards CC, Bridwell KH. The Lenke classification of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: how it organizes curve patterns as a template to perform selective fusions of the spine. Spine. 2003; 28: S199-S207.
9. Min K, Haefeli M, Mueller D, et al. Anterior short correction in thoracic adolescent idiopathic scoliosis with mini-open thoracotomy approach: prospective clinical, radiological and pulmonary function results. Eur Spine J. 2012; 21 Suppl 6: S765-S772. doi: 10.1007/s00586-012-2156-8.
10. Wilk B, Karol LA, Johnston CE, et al. The effect of scoliosis fusion on spinal motion: a comparison of fused and nonfused patients with idiopathic scoliosis. Spine. 2006; 31: 309-314.
Review
For citations:
Petrenko D.E., Mezentsev A.A., Shchapov P.F. COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF SPINAL MOBILITY AFTER ANTERIOR AND POSTERIOR INSTRUMENTED FUSION IN PATIENTS WITH IDIOPATHIC SCOLIOSIS. Russian Journal of Spine Surgery (Khirurgiya Pozvonochnika). 2014;(2):36-41. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.14531/ss2014.2.36-41
Email this article 