Next Article in Journal
Mpox: An Overview of Pathogenesis, Diagnosis, and Public Health Implications
Next Article in Special Issue
The Prevalence of Cancer in Dutch Female Patients with Idiopathic Scoliosis Compared with the General Population
Previous Article in Journal
Retinal Vessel Analysis and Microvascular Abnormalities in Patients with Philadelphia-Negative Chronic Myeloproliferative Neoplasms
Previous Article in Special Issue
How Long Can You Delay? Curve Progression While Awaiting Vertebral Body Tethering Surgery
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Communication

Revision of Surgery for Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis: Reasons, Treatments, and Clinical Management with Case Examples

by
Lawrence G. Lenke
1,2,
Veronica Lee
3 and
Fthimnir M. Hassan
1,2,*
1
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, NY 10032, USA
2
The Daniel and Jane Och Spine Hospital, New York Presbyterian, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, NY 10034, USA
3
Roy and Diana Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia University, New York, NY 10032, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
J. Clin. Med. 2024, 13(8), 2233; https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm13082233
Submission received: 22 March 2024 / Revised: 9 April 2024 / Accepted: 10 April 2024 / Published: 12 April 2024

Abstract

:
Adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) is a curvature of the spine that develops in children ages 10–18 and can be attributed to unknown causes. The Lenke AIS classification system provides a template to classify these deformities by curve type paired with recommended operative treatments. Treatment of this patient population has been associated with low complication rates and overall surgical success. Nonetheless, a fraction of patients remain susceptible to revision surgery. This manuscript will focus on the aspects of AIS surgery, highlighting case examples, the different treatment approaches, complication rates, and primary reasons for revision surgery and associated outcomes.

1. Introduction

Adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) is a curvature of the spine that develops in children ages 10–18 and cannot be attributed to other causes of scoliosis, such as neuromuscular disorders or vertebral malformations [1]. AIS affects 1–3% of children and often occurs around the age of puberty, which can range between the ages of 11 and 18 years old [1]. Rates of AIS are higher in females than males, with female-to-male ratios ranging from 1.5:1 to 3:1, and this difference becomes more pronounced with increasing curve magnitude [2].
Introduced in 2001, the Lenke classification system of AIS provides an accurate and reliable system to classify idiopathic spinal deformities and recommended operative treatment approaches [3]. This system distinguishes six curve types (1–6), three lumbar spine modifiers (A, B, C), and three sagittal thoracic modifiers (−, N, +) [3]. The six curve types evaluate the type of curvature (major, minor structural, or nonstructural) in each of the major spinal column regions: proximal thoracic (PT), main thoracic (MT), and thoracolumbar/lumbar (TL/L) [3]. The lumbar modifier compares the position of the center sacral vertical line (CSVL) to the apex of the lumbar curve [3]. Lastly, the sagittal thoracic modifiers evaluate the T5-T12 sagittal Cobb measurement [3].
Importantly, the Lenke AIS classification system can indicate an operative treatment plan for AIS patients with Cobb angles over 40–50 degrees. One standard treatment for AIS is complete fusion of both the major and minor structural curves. Although complete fusion may decrease the potential risk of some post-operative complications, such as curve progression, it significantly limits the mobility of the spine and increases the risk of sagittal decompensation, lumbar degeneration, and chronic back pain [4]. In recent years, surgery for AIS has aimed to both prophylactically prevent curve progression and preserve mobility and flexibility among this young patient population. As such, selective fusion of the thoracic and thoracolumbar/lumbar curves has been increasingly used [5]. In these cases, selective fusion of the major curve leaves the minor curve unfused, allowing for spontaneous correction of the minor curve postoperatively.
Selective thoracic fusion of 1C and 2C curves (and some 3C curves) have shown to be successful, whereas 5C or 6C curves can be significantly improved with selective thoracolumbar/lumbar fusion [5]. With the proper instrumentation and level selection, spontaneous correction of the minor curve can be observed [5,6,7,8]. Vertebral body tethering (VBT), however, is another surgical procedure for AIS patients which seeks to preserve mobility and allow for spinal growth by linking vertebral bodies together with a flexible tether. Studies have reported VBT to be effective and safe, especially in young patients that have moderate curvature of the spine [9].

2. Case Discussions

Figure 1 and Figure 2 demonstrate a 25-year-old male who was diagnosed with AIS at the age of 14 years. After conservative treatments for three years, the patient underwent a posterior spinal instrumented fusion (PSIF) for T2-L1 at the age of 17 years. Nine years following the initial surgery, the patient presented with progressive back pain in the setting of bilateral rod fractures from T6 to T8 in addition to shoulder malignment and a large rib prominence secondary to his progressive deformity (Figure 2). The patient had a normal dynamic and static motor exam in his lower extremities with no evidence of any myelopathy. Preoperative anterio-posterior (AP) standing full-body radiographs (EOS Imaging, Paris, France) demonstrated an 82° and 65° proximal thoracic and main thoracic curve, respectively. Supine images showed the proximal and main thoracic curves decreasing to 77° and 48°, respectively. Preoperative lateral standing full-body radiographs demonstrated 88° of thoracic hyperkyphosis, 78° of hyperlordosis, and a small pelvic incidence of 48° (Figure 1).
The patient underwent a revision surgery consisting of removal of the existing instrumentation from T3 to L1, posterior column Smith-Petersen osteotomies from T2 to T12, vertebral column resection (VCR) via a lateral extracavitary approach at T4 and T5, anterior spinal fusion for T3–T5 with the addition of an anterior structural titanium cage in the VCR site, and PSIF from T1 to L3. The procedure went uncomplicated with excellent correction obtained both radiographically and clinically (Figure 3 and Figure 4).

3. Discussions

3.1. Complications and Reasons for Revision

Perioperative complication rates associated with surgical treatment of AIS have been reported to be between 5% and 23% [10,11,12,13]. More specifically, a study by Menger et al. [14] estimated rates of 0.9% for neurological complications, 2.8% for respiratory complications, 0.8% for cardiac complications, 0.4% for infections, 2.7% for gastrointestinal complications, 0.1% for renal complications, and 0.1% for venous complications. Following hospital discharge, postoperative complications can occur at a rate of around 4.1%, with the majority being wound- and instrumentation-related complications. Early postoperative complications include instrumentation malposition, poor wound healing/wound dehiscence, and postoperative infection [11]. Regarding instrumentation malposition, malpositioned screws and loss of fixation to bone or connection between implants make up the majority of cases [11]. Regarding postoperative infection, deep infection occurred in 31.4% (11 of 35 cases), while superficial infection occurred in 25.7% (9 of 35 cases) [11]. The most common longer term postoperative complications are pseudarthrosis, curve progression, and proximal junctional kyphosis [15]. Among these, postoperative infection, pseudarthrosis, and curve progression are the most frequent causes of revision surgery, accounting for 34%, 26%, and 17% of reoperations, respectively [16]. In an analysis of 36,335 patients, De la Garza Ramos et al. [17] found rates of postoperative complications to be higher among patients who are male, younger, and have anemia, hypertension, or hypothyroidism.
A study by Jamnik et al. [18] found a greater than 50% decrease in overall complication rate of patients treated in 2013–2019 compared to those treated in 2008–2012, suggesting that surgery for AIS is continuing to improve in treatment efficacy and patient safety. Interestingly, this decrease was due to decreases in rates of postoperative infection and symptomatic instrumentation, rather than the rate of complications due to pseudarthrosis and instrumentation failures, which have remained unchanged [18].
Regarding selective fusion surgeries specifically, studies have shown this technique to have excellent long-term results with low rates of postoperative complications [19,20]. For example, in a retrospective study that followed AIS patients after undergoing selective thoracic fusion with a minimum 5-year follow-up, Suk et al. [21] reported no junctional kyphosis, coronal decompensation in 4.9% of patients (10 of 203 patients), and curve progression in 8.4% of patients (17 of 203 patients). Another study by Edwards et al. [8] followed 44 consecutive AIS patients who underwent selective thoracic fusion for 2–16 years after corrective surgery and found that none of the patients required postoperative bracing or revision operations. Furthermore, Edwards et al. [8] reported no instances of instrumentation loosening, dislodging, or breaking. Although some cases that utilized the posterior approach reported proximal junctional kyphosis at the thoracolumbar junction (preoperative to latest +5°), this was not noted for any cases that utilized the anterior approach [8].
Revision surgeries vary widely depending on the postoperative complications they aim to correct. For example, extension of instrumentation proximally or distally can address curve progression [22,23,24]. Placement of additional instrumentation can be added posteriorly or anteriorly to address pseudarthrosis and stabilize the spine [22,23,24]. In some cases, part or all of the instrumentation can be removed to address pain or infection [22,23,24]. Yet another revision technique employs osteotomies to address progressive spine deformity [22].
For selective thoracic fusions in particular, some studies report that improper choice of the lowest instrumented vertebra (LIV) leads to postoperative complications, most notably curve progression, and the need for revision [25,26]. In 18 such cases, El Rachkidi et al. [27] successfully employed the simple technique of extending the instrumentation and fusion to the LIV + 1 level. In these cases, all patients were female with a mean age of 13.9 years, and the mean time between the primary surgery and revision surgery was 8.4 months [27].
Revisions due to decompensation, adding on, and junctional kyphosis occur mainly 2–5 years after the primary operation, while revisions due to wound and instrumentation-related complications, such as infection and malposition, mainly occur less than 2 years after operation [15]. A study by El Rachkidi et al. [27] reported that patients were never re-operated on before 3 months postoperative to allow for spontaneous correction. Yet another study by Diederich et al. [28] suggests a bimodal timeline for revision surgery, with revisions occurring either within 15 years or over 30 years after the primary operation.
Regarding vertebral body tethering, the most common postoperative complications are tether breakage, pulmonary complications, and overcorrection [29]. Although successful cases are able to preserve spinal mobility, several studies point to relatively high rates of complication and revision surgery compared to fusion and selective fusion. For example, Newton et al. [30] found that 8 of the 17 patients in their study (47%) had a suspected broken tether, and 7 of the 17 patients (41%) underwent revision surgery to remove, add, or replace tethers. In another study, Zhang et al. [29] reported tether breakage in 21.3% of patients and a revision rate of 13.1%. For these reasons, selective fusion appears to be the safer option AIS patients.

3.2. Revision Surgery and Patient Reported Outcomes

Most AIS cases treated surgically are successful, and patients report substantial improvements in self-image and satisfaction, as well as moderate improvements in pain, functionality, and mental health at 2 and 5 years following the operation [31]. Although Mariconda et al. [32,33] suggests that these improvements did not lead to full normalization of health-related quality of life compared to age and sex-matched healthy controls 5 years after surgery, a study by Simony et al. [32,33] found that the health-related quality of life for AIS patients treated with spinal fusion was similar to that of the general population by the 25 year mark.
Despite the general success of spinal fusion for AIS patients, major postoperative complications have been reported to diminish patient-reported outcomes (PROs). Patients experiencing active major complications scored the lowest in all domains of the Scoliosis Research Society (SRS-22) questionnaire [34]. In addition, a study by Jamnik et al. [35] found that patients who experienced curve progression, 20% of whom underwent a revision surgery, had a significantly lower SRS score for appearance, satisfaction, and mental health 5 years after surgery.

4. Conclusions and Trajectory Moving Forward

Surgery for AIS patients will continue to show lessened complications with improved outcomes as both fusion and tether surgery become more standardized. In the future, machine learning algorithms will undoubtedly assist surgeons and parents in determining the best surgical approach at the optimal time for the most successful result with the lowest complication rates.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, L.G.L., V.L. and F.M.H.; methodology, L.G.L., V.L. and F.M.H.; writing—original draft preparation, V.L. and F.M.H.; resources, V.L. and F.M.H.; writing—review and editing, L.G.L. and F.M.H.; supervision, F.M.H.; project administration, F.M.H. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Written informed consent was obtained for the individuals included in this narrative.

Data Availability Statement

No data were reported as part of this study.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

References

  1. Weinstein, S.L.; Dolan, L.A.; Cheng, J.C.; Danielsson, A.; Morcuende, J.A. Adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Lancet 2008, 371, 1527–1537. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Konieczny, M.R.; Senyurt, H.; Krauspe, R. Epidemiology of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. J. Child. Orthop. 2013, 7, 3–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Lenke, L.G.; Betz, R.R.; Harms, J.; Bridwell, K.H.; Clements, D.H.; Lowe, T.G.; Blanke, K. Adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: A new classification to determine extent of spinal arthrodesis. J. Bone Joint Surg. Am. 2001, 83, 1169–1181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Fischer, C.R.; Kim, Y. Selective fusion for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: A review of current operative strategy. Eur. Spine J. 2011, 20, 1048–1057. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Lenke, L.G.; Edwards, C.C., 2nd; Bridwell, K.H. 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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Lenke, L.G.; Betz, R.R.; Bridwell, K.H.; Harms, J.; Clements, D.H.; Lowe, T.G. Spontaneous lumbar curve coronal correction after selective anterior or posterior thoracic fusion in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Spine 1999, 24, 1663–1671, discussion 1672. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Patel, P.N.; Upasani, V.V.; Bastrom, T.P.; Marks, M.C.; Pawelek, J.B.; Betz, R.R.; Lenke, L.G.; Newton, P.O. Spontaneous lumbar curve correction in selective thoracic fusions of idiopathic scoliosis: A comparison of anterior and posterior approaches. Spine 2008, 33, 1068–1073. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Edwards, C.C., 2nd; Lenke, L.G.; Peelle, M.; Sides, B.; Rinella, A.; Bridwell, K.H. Selective thoracic fusion for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis with C modifier lumbar curves: 2- to 16-year radiographic and clinical results. Spine 2004, 29, 536–546. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Raitio, A.; Syvanen, J.; Helenius, I. Vertebral Body Tethering: Indications, Surgical Technique, and a Systematic Review of Published Results. J. Clin. Med. 2022, 11, 2576. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Vigneswaran, H.T.; Grabel, Z.J.; Eberson, C.P.; Palumbo, M.A.; Daniels, A.H. Surgical treatment of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis in the United States from 1997 to 2012: An analysis of 20,346 patients. J. Neurosurg. Pediatr. 2015, 16, 322–328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Bartley, C.E.; Yaszay, B.; Bastrom, T.P.; Shah, S.A.; Lonner, B.S.; Asghar, J.; Miyanji, F.; Samdani, A.; Newton, P.O. Perioperative and Delayed Major Complications Following Surgical Treatment of Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis. J. Bone Joint Surg. Am. 2017, 99, 1206–1212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Lykissas, M.G.; Jain, V.V.; Nathan, S.T.; Pawar, V.; Eismann, E.A.; Sturm, P.F.; Crawford, A.H. Mid- to long-term outcomes in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis after instrumented posterior spinal fusion: A meta-analysis. Spine 2013, 38, E113–E119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Reames, D.L.; Smith, J.S.; Fu, K.M.; Polly, D.W., Jr.; Ames, C.P.; Berven, S.H.; Perra, J.H.; Glassman, S.D.; McCarthy, R.E.; Knapp, R.D., Jr.; et al. Complications in the surgical treatment of 19,360 cases of pediatric scoliosis: A review of the Scoliosis Research Society Morbidity and Mortality database. Spine 2011, 36, 1484–1491. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Menger, R.P.; Kalakoti, P.; Pugely, A.J.; Nanda, A.; Sin, A. Adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: Risk factors for complications and the effect of hospital volume on outcomes. Neurosurg. Focus. 2017, 43, E3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Dong, Y.; Wang, S.; Tang, N.; Zhao, H.; Yu, B.; Zhang, J. Revision Surgery After Spinal Fusion in Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis. Global Spine J. 2022, 14, 603–609. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Luhmann, S.J.; Lenke, L.G.; Bridwell, K.H.; Schootman, M. Revision surgery after primary spine fusion for idiopathic scoliosis. Spine 2009, 34, 2191–2197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. De la Garza Ramos, R.; Goodwin, C.R.; Abu-Bonsrah, N.; Jain, A.; Miller, E.K.; Huang, N.; Kebaish, K.M.; Sponseller, P.D.; Sciubba, D.M. Patient and operative factors associated with complications following adolescent idiopathic scoliosis surgery: An analysis of 36,335 patients from the Nationwide Inpatient Sample. J. Neurosurg. Pediatr. 2016, 25, 730–736. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Jamnik, A.A.; Datcu, A.M.; Lachmann, E.; Patibandla, S.D.; Thornberg, D.; Jo, C.H.; Morris, W.Z.; Ramo, B.; Johnson, M. Repeat surgical interventions following “definitive” instrumentation and fusion for idiopathic scoliosis: A 30-year update. Spine Deform. 2023, 12, 99–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Delfino, R.; Pizones, J.; Ruiz-Juretschke, C.; Sanchez-Mariscal, F.; Zuniga, L.; Izquierdo, E. Selective Anterior Thoracolumbar Fusion in Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis: Long-Term Results After 17-Year Follow-Up. Spine 2017, 42, E788–E794. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Studer, D.; Awais, A.; Williams, N.; Antoniou, G.; Eardley-Harris, N.; Cundy, P. Selective fusion in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: A radiographic evaluation of risk factors for imbalance. J. Child. Orthop. 2015, 9, 153–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Suk, S.I.; Lee, S.M.; Chung, E.R.; Kim, J.H.; Kim, S.S. Selective thoracic fusion with segmental pedicle screw fixation in the treatment of thoracic idiopathic scoliosis: More than 5-year follow-up. Spine 2005, 30, 1602–1609. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Dede, O.; Yazici, M. Revision surgery for pediatric spine deformity: Corrective osteotomies. J. Pediatr. Orthop. 2014, 34 (Suppl. S1), S6–S10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Yagi, M.; King, A.B.; Kim, H.J.; Cunningham, M.E.; Boachie-Adjei, O. Outcome of Revision Surgery in Pediatric Spine Deformity Patients. Spine Deform. 2013, 1, 59–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Kim, H.J.; Cunningham, M.E.; Boachie-Adjei, O. Revision spine surgery to manage pediatric deformity. J. Am. Acad. Orthop. Surg. 2010, 18, 739–748. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Cho, R.H.; Yaszay, B.; Bartley, C.E.; Bastrom, T.P.; Newton, P.O. Which Lenke 1A curves are at the greatest risk for adding-on… and why? Spine 2012, 37, 1384–1390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Kwan, K.Y.H.; Wong, C.P.; Koh, H.Y.; Cheung, K.M.C. Selection of Lowest Instrumented Vertebra Using Fulcrum Bending Radiographs Achieved Shorter Fusion Safely Compared With the Last “Substantially” Touching Vertebra in Lenke Type 1A and 2A Curves. Spine 2019, 44, E1419–E1427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. El Rachkidi, R.; Silvestre, C.; Roussouly, P. Early Revision Surgery for Distal Adding-On Correction in Lenke 1 and 2 Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis. Cureus 2022, 14, e30960. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Diederich, A.; Erwin, J.; Carlson, B.; Bunch, J.; Jackson, R.S.; Burton, D. Indications and timing of revision spine surgery in adults after adolescent surgery for idiopathic scoliosis. Spine Deform. 2022, 10, 1385–1392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Zhang, H.; Fan, Y.; Ni, S.; Pi, G. The preliminary outcomes of vertebral body tethering in treating adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: A systematic review. Spine Deform. 2022, 10, 1233–1243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Newton, P.O.; Kluck, D.G.; Saito, W.; Yaszay, B.; Bartley, C.E.; Bastrom, T.P. Anterior Spinal Growth Tethering for Skeletally Immature Patients with Scoliosis: A Retrospective Look Two to Four Years Postoperatively. J. Bone Joint Surg. Am. 2018, 100, 1691–1697. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Aghdasi, B.; Bachmann, K.R.; Clark, D.; Koldenhoven, R.; Sultan, M.; George, J.; Singla, A.; Abel, M.F. Patient-reported Outcomes Following Surgical Intervention for Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Clin. Spine Surg. 2020, 33, 24–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Mariconda, M.; Andolfi, C.; Cerbasi, S.; Servodidio, V. Effect of surgical correction of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis on the quality of life: A prospective study with a minimum 5-year follow-up. Eur. Spine J. 2016, 25, 3331–3340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Simony, A.; Hansen, E.J.; Carreon, L.Y.; Christensen, S.B.; Andersen, M.O. Health-related quality-of-life in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis patients 25 years after treatment. Scoliosis 2015, 10, 22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Bastrom, T.P.; Yaszay, B.; Shah, S.A.; Miyanji, F.; Lonner, B.S.; Kelly, M.P.; Samdani, A.; Asghar, J.; Newton, P.O. Major Complications at Two Years After Surgery Impact SRS Scores for Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis Patients. Spine Deform. 2019, 7, 93–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Jamnik, A.A.; Grigoriou, E.; Kadado, A.; Jo, C.H.; Boes, N.; Thornberg, D.; Tran, D.P.; Ramo, B. Radiographic and clinical outcomes after definitive spine fusion for skeletally immature patients with idiopathic scoliosis. Spine Deform. 2023, 12, 149–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. 25-year-old male who previously underwent a posterior spinal instrumented fusion (PSIF) for T2-L1 at the age of 17 years presented with progressive back pain in the setting of bilateral rod fractures from T6 to T8. Preoperative anterio-posterior (AP) standing full-body radiographs demonstrated an 82° proximal thoracic and 65° main thoracic curve. Supine images showed the proximal and main thoracic curves decreasing to 77° and 48°, respectively. Preoperative lateral standing full-body radiographs demonstrated 88° of thoracic hyperkyphosis, 78° of hyperlordosis, and a small pelvic incidence of 48°.
Figure 1. 25-year-old male who previously underwent a posterior spinal instrumented fusion (PSIF) for T2-L1 at the age of 17 years presented with progressive back pain in the setting of bilateral rod fractures from T6 to T8. Preoperative anterio-posterior (AP) standing full-body radiographs demonstrated an 82° proximal thoracic and 65° main thoracic curve. Supine images showed the proximal and main thoracic curves decreasing to 77° and 48°, respectively. Preoperative lateral standing full-body radiographs demonstrated 88° of thoracic hyperkyphosis, 78° of hyperlordosis, and a small pelvic incidence of 48°.
Jcm 13 02233 g001
Figure 2. A 25-year-old male who previously underwent a posterior spinal instrumented fusion (PSIF) for T2-L1 at the age of 17 years presented with progressive back pain in addition to shoulder malignment and a large rib prominence secondary to his progressive deformity. The patient had a normal dynamic and static motor exam in his lower extremities with no evidence of any myelopathy.
Figure 2. A 25-year-old male who previously underwent a posterior spinal instrumented fusion (PSIF) for T2-L1 at the age of 17 years presented with progressive back pain in addition to shoulder malignment and a large rib prominence secondary to his progressive deformity. The patient had a normal dynamic and static motor exam in his lower extremities with no evidence of any myelopathy.
Jcm 13 02233 g002
Figure 3. 25-year-old male who underwent a posterior spinal instrumented fusion (PSIF) for T2-L1 at the age of 17 years presenting with progressive back pain in setting of bilateral rod fractures from T6 to T8. Patient underwent a revision surgery consisting of removal of the existing instrumentation from T3 to L1, PCOs from T2 to T12, VCR at T4 and T5, ASF at T3–T5 with the addition of an anterior structural titanium cage in the VCR site, and PSIF from T1 to L3. The procedure went without uncomplications with excellent correction obtained.
Figure 3. 25-year-old male who underwent a posterior spinal instrumented fusion (PSIF) for T2-L1 at the age of 17 years presenting with progressive back pain in setting of bilateral rod fractures from T6 to T8. Patient underwent a revision surgery consisting of removal of the existing instrumentation from T3 to L1, PCOs from T2 to T12, VCR at T4 and T5, ASF at T3–T5 with the addition of an anterior structural titanium cage in the VCR site, and PSIF from T1 to L3. The procedure went without uncomplications with excellent correction obtained.
Jcm 13 02233 g003
Figure 4. A 25-year-old male who underwent a posterior spinal instrumented fusion (PSIF) for T2-L1 at the age of 17 years who presented with a progressive deformity clinically highlighted by shoulder malignment and a large rib prominence. Following his revision surgery consisting of ROI T3-L1, PCO T2–T12, VCR T4–T5, ASF T3–T5, PSIF T1-L3, excellent correction of his deformity was obtained both radiographically and clinically.
Figure 4. A 25-year-old male who underwent a posterior spinal instrumented fusion (PSIF) for T2-L1 at the age of 17 years who presented with a progressive deformity clinically highlighted by shoulder malignment and a large rib prominence. Following his revision surgery consisting of ROI T3-L1, PCO T2–T12, VCR T4–T5, ASF T3–T5, PSIF T1-L3, excellent correction of his deformity was obtained both radiographically and clinically.
Jcm 13 02233 g004
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Lenke, L.G.; Lee, V.; Hassan, F.M. Revision of Surgery for Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis: Reasons, Treatments, and Clinical Management with Case Examples. J. Clin. Med. 2024, 13, 2233. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm13082233

AMA Style

Lenke LG, Lee V, Hassan FM. Revision of Surgery for Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis: Reasons, Treatments, and Clinical Management with Case Examples. Journal of Clinical Medicine. 2024; 13(8):2233. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm13082233

Chicago/Turabian Style

Lenke, Lawrence G., Veronica Lee, and Fthimnir M. Hassan. 2024. "Revision of Surgery for Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis: Reasons, Treatments, and Clinical Management with Case Examples" Journal of Clinical Medicine 13, no. 8: 2233. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm13082233

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop