Selective Thoracolumbar/Lumbar Fusions.
Twenty-one patients with a major TL/L curve and a minor MT curve in which the MT curve apical body completely deviated from the C7 plumbline were treated from 1992 to 2000. Sixteen patients were classified as Lenke 5C patterns, whereas 5 patients were classified as Lenke 6C patterns. All patients were female with a median age of 14 + 8 (range 13–18). For all patients, an anterior instrumentation and fusion was performed of the TL/L curve alone, with the MT curve left unfused. All patients had a single solid rod instrumentation and fusion with structural interbody cages used for sagittal alignment and increased construct stability (Figure 6). No patients were braced after surgery.
Selective thoracic fusions were performed in 44 patients (42 female and 2 male). The median age was 14.2 years (range 10.4–18.7) and the skeletal maturity level based on the Risser sign was: 0 (n = 14), 1 (n = 1), 2 (n = 4), 3 (n = 3), 4 (n = 20), and 5 (n = 2). The mean duration of radiographic follow-up was 5.0 years (range 2 + 0–16 + 0). Curve types according to the Lenke system where: 1CN (n = 29), 1C− (n = 5), and 1C+ (n = 2). In addition, there were 8 double thoracic Type 2 curves that had “C” lumbar modifiers and had a selective double thoracic fusion: 2CN (n = 7), and 2C− (n = 1). The average preoperative MT curve was 61° (range 40°–91°), corrected to an average 36° (range 17°–60°) early postoperative, and to 39° (range 15°–57°) at latest follow-up. The average preoperative lumbar curve measured 47° (range 30°–66°), decreasing to an average 32° (range 8°–48°) at latest follow-up.
The preoperative ratio criteria of MT:TL/L Cobb magnitude was 1.30. Preoperative AVT-MT averaged 54 mm (range 33 mm–98 mm), and AVT-TL/L averaged 29 mm (range 19 mm–47 mm), with an AVT ratio was 1.86. Preoperative AVR-MT averaged 2.0 Nash-Moe grade, and AVR-TL/L averaged 1.4 for the lumbar curve, with an AVR ratio of 1.43. In no patient was the lumbar Cobb magnitude, AVT, or AVR greater than that of the MT curve. Fifteen patients underwent an anterior instrumentation and fusion of the MT curve spanning the Cobb levels and involving an average of 7 vertebrae (range 5–8 vertebrae). Twenty-six patients underwent posterior instrumentation and fusion of the MT curve with an average of 10 vertebrae fused (range 8–12 vertebra). The majority of patients fused posteriorly were to the stable vertebra.
Although the lumbar Cobb improved on each patient undergoing a selective MT fusion, true correction of lumbar AVT was inconsistent. 15 Two subsets of patient emerged based on whether there was any change in the AVT-TL/L. In Group A (n = 25 patients), AVT-TL/L improved a mean 9 mm (range 1–28 mm). For Group B (n = 19 patients), AVT-TL/L stayed the same or was slightly worse from preoperative to last follow-up by an average of 5 mm (range 0–15 mm). Comparison of Groups A and B revealed significant differences in terms of upper lumbar vertebra coronal tilt (Group A: 28°; Group B: 35°; P = 0.01), preoperative lumbar Cobb magnitude (Group A: 45°; Group B: 51°; P = 0.01), preoperative coronal balance (C7 plumb shifted to the left: Group A: 22 mm; Group B: 11 mm; P = 0.02), and skeletal maturity (mean Risser sign, Group A: 3.1 vs. Group B: 1.4; P = 0.01). For all patients in Group B, the lumbar curve retained its “C” modifier status at the latest follow-up. However, the 25 Group A patients, improved their lumbar apical vertebral translation and corresponding lumbar modifier grade in 15 patients (C into B in 12 patients, and C into A in 3 patients). Apical vertebral rotation-TL/L did not exhibit any significant spontaneous correction after surgery or during follow-up.
Global coronal balance was shifted to the left by an average of 17 mm before surgery (range 43 mm–+23 mm). In each of the postoperative time points, the average coronal C7 plumb remained similar. At latest follow-up, 21 patients had a C7 plumb shifted to the left >20 mm, including 3 patients with a C7 plumb ≥ 40 mm (40 mm, 41 mm, 46 mm). These patients exhibited no clinical problems with their mild global imbalance. Patients undergoing posterior procedures tended to have an increased frequency of imbalance (9 patients > 30 mm decompensated with 8 undergoing posterior procedures and only one an anterior procedure).
Long-term follow-up demonstrated good maintenance of curve correction and global balance. Patients with 5 to 16 years (n = 18) follow-up had excellent maintenance of MT (2 year: 41°, latest: 42°), and lumbar (2 year: 34°, latest: 32°) Cobb correction. Global balance was also similar with imbalance >20 mm occurring in 7 patients at the 2-year and 8 patients at the final follow-up.
Skeletal immaturity was analyzed for potential influence on spontaneous correction and maintenance of global balance. Loss of correction in both the MT and TL/L curves tended to occur more commonly in skeletally immature patients (Risser 0 or 1) compared to patients that were more skeletally mature (Risser 2–5). For the unfused compensatory lumbar curve, 4 of 15 (27%) of skeletally immature patients increased their curve magnitude >10° (range 10–23°) from postoperative to latest follow-up compared to 2 of 29 (7%) of skeletally mature patients (P = 0.16). However, it is important to note that neither postoperative bracing nor revision surgery was required for skeletally immature or mature patients for any purpose including global imbalance during the length of follow-up in this study.
The SRS-24 Questionnaire functional outcome data were obtained for 41 of 44 (93%) of patients at latest follow-up. 14 Obviously, the majority of these patients had their initial surgery before the availability of the SRS-24 Questionnaire. The average latest follow-up outcome and subset scores were: total score 95, pain 28, self-image 22, function 32, and satisfaction 13. The scores of patients undergoing either an anterior or posterior procedure were nearly identical. However, patients with a postoperative coronal imbalance (2–4.6 cm) tended to have an inferior pain, self-image, and function subset scores and overall lower total scores. Overall, 81% of patients (33/41) stated that they probably would or definitely would have the surgery again, and 81% (33/41) stated that they were somewhat or extremely satisfied with the results of their back treatment.
Thorocolumbar/Lumbar Selective Fusion
Of the 21 patients undergoing selective TL/L fusion, the average preoperative TL/L curve was 55° (range 42–80°), decreasing to an average 20° (range 6–38°) at a minimum 2-year follow-up. For the corresponding MT unfused curve, the preoperative Cobb averaged 40° (range 30–65°), and at 2 years postoperatively averaged 23° (range 9–45°). Overall, coronal imbalance improved from a mean 3.5 cm preoperative (range 0–4.8 cm imbalance) to 1.6 cm postoperative (range 0–2.8 cm imbalance). No patient had worse imbalance postoperative than preoperative.
All patients had solid arthrodesis with lack of instrumentation failure noted at a minimum 2-year follow-up. One patient who was skeletally immature (Risser 0) preoperative had an early postoperative MT curve that measured 40°, which progressed with growth to 57° and underwent a posterior instrumentation and fusion of both MT and TL/L curves at 3 years postoperatively. That is the only patient that had extension of a selective TL/L fusion.
The goals in the surgical treatment of AIS are: to halt curve progression, maintain optimal coronal and sagittal balance, to correct the deformity while fusing the least amount of motion segments, and to avoid any complications. Selective thoracic fusion provides partial correction of the major curve while providing the potential for spontaneous lumbar curve correction and maintaining mobile lumbar motion segments. 10,16–18 Performing a successful selective thoracic fusion begins with appropriate analysis of curve patterns amenable to this technique. In Lenke Types 1C and 2C, the MT curve is the major curve but the lumbar curve below by definition is flexible on side bending (<25° residual curve) and lacks a junctional thoracolumbar kyphosis of ≥20° between T10 and L2. In addition, the ratio criteria of MT:TL/L Cobb magnitude, AVT, and AVR must be in the range of 1.2 or greater, especially for the AVT ratio, to allow a successful thoracic fusion to be performed (Table 1). Decompensation following selective thoracic fusion typically involves lumbar curves that are larger in curve magnitude, less flexible with substantial rotation and/or deviation from the midline especially when the ratio criteria are closer to 1.0 indicating equal structural characteristics to both the MT curve above and the TL/L curve below. 10,11,18 Lastly, but of equal importance, is the clinical examination of the patient. Patients amenable for selective thoracic fusion will have right thoracic trunk shift in the upright position with fullness in the right thoracic region, but lacking substantial waste line creases on the right side indicative of a structural lumbar curve. In addition, the forward bend thoracic prominence should demonstrate a substantial rotational difference versus the lumbar prominence on visual inspection and scoliometer measurement 4 (Table 2).
Once the patient and his/her radiographs have been chosen for selective thoracic fusion, intraoperative technique, which provides optimal correction of the MT curve while maximizing spontaneous lumbar correction, and maintaining overall coronal balance are critical for success. These patients can either be approached anteriorly or posteriorly. 15 In this review, anterior procedures involved fusion of fewer segments (7 vs. 10), with a significantly greater degree of instrumented MT correction and superior spontaneous TL/L curve correction. However, posterior procedures certainly did provide good to excellent radiographic and clinical results as well. In fact there was no difference in the SRS-24 Questionnaire data at follow-up between the patients fused anteriorly versus posteriorly. Surgeons must weigh the benefit of slightly increased main thoracic correction and lumbar spontaneous correction versus the pulmonary morbidity associated with an open thoracotomy or an endoscopic instrumentation and fusion. Certainly both techniques are viable options to perform a selective thoracic fusion in this subset of patients.
Performing a selective TL/L fusion demands equal careful radiographic and clinical analysis. The TL/L:MT ratios of Cobb magnitude, AVT, and AVR should be ≥1.25 (Table 3). In addition, careful analysis of the patient’s truncal balance is essential. For a major left TL/L curve, a patient with a depressed left shoulder is a relative contraindication to a selective TL/L fusion because correction of the TL/L curve will further depress the left shoulder. In addition, the thoracic rib prominence must be carefully evaluated, because a selective TL/L fusion will not significantly lower the thoracic rib prominence (Table 4). In relationship to the lumbar prominence, which will markedly diminish with surgical correction, the thoracic prominence will actually appear a bit more prominent postoperative versus preoperative. These clinical features must be discussed with both the patients and their parents/caregivers before embarking on a selective TL/L fusion. Additionally, most patients who are highly skeletally immature (Risser 0, open triradiate cartilages) are at higher risk for MT curve progression with growth, and thus, surgeons must be very careful when performing a selective TL/L fusion in skeletally immature patients. 12
There are many operative AIS curves in which both the thoracic and lumbar regions completely deviate from the midline. However, the major curve can often have a selective fusion, thereby leaving the corresponding minor curve unfused. Performance of a selective thoracic or TL/L fusion in the surgical treatment of AIS is an extremely important principle to maximize spinal flexibility early and avoid lumbar degeneration. 19–23 The potential to perform a selective fusion begins with careful radiographic analysis of the Lenke curve pattern on the upright anteroposterior, lateral, and side bending films. Next, ratio criteria of MT:TL/L structural characteristics of Cobb magnitude, AVT, AVR, and flexibility ratios must be assessed. When these ratios of the major curve intended for selective fusion to the minor compensatory curve are ≥1.2, selective fusion should be possible. In addition, the clinical examination of the patient must document the marked difference in major versus minor curve prominences. Lastly, instrumentation and fusion techniques, which optimize instrumented correction while allowing for spontaneous correction of the unfused curves and maintaining overall coronal and sagittal balance, must be performed. If all of these principles are followed appropriately, selective fusion of the spine should provide a good to excellent radiographic and clinical outcomes that maximize spinal mobility following surgery.
- A “selective” fusion is a term reserved for fusion of a major curve (largest Cobb measurement) leaving the minor curves unfused, when the corresponding thoracic or lumbar minor curves completely deviate from the midline.
- Lenke classification main thoracic (1C) and double thoracic (2C) curves are potentially amenable to selective thoracic fusion. Occasionally, a double major (3C) curve may qualify as well.
- Major thoracolumbar/lumbar (5C) and major thoracolumbar/lumbar–secondary main thoracic (6C) curves are potentially amenable for a selective thoracolumbar/lumbar fusion.
- Ratio criteria of thoracic: lumbar (T:L) Cobb magnitude, apical vertebral translation, and apical vertebral rotation are important characteristics to evaluate additionally.
- The patient’s clinical examination must provide evidence for a more prominent structural major curve region with less prominent minor curve region(s).
- Instrumentation techniques must be utilized which optimize major curve correction while allowing spontaneous minor curve correction and rebalancing.
1. King H, Moe J, Bradford D, et al. The selection of fusion levels in thoracic idiopathic scoliosis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1983; 65A: 1302–13.
2. Richards S. Lumbar curve response in type II idiopathic scoliosis after posterior instrumentation of the thoracic spine. Spine 1992; 17S: 282–6.
3. McCance S, Denis F, Lonstein J, Winter R. Coronal and sagittal balance in surgically treated adolescent idiopathic scoliosis with the King II curve pattern. Spine 1998; 23: 2063–73.
4. King H. Analysis and treatment of type 2 idiopathic scoliosis. Ortho Clin North Am 1994; 25: 225–37.
5. Lenke L, Betz R, Bridwell K, et al. Intraobserver and interobserver reliability of the classification of thoracic adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1998; 80A: 1097–106.
6. Cummings J, Loveless EA, Campbell J, et al. Interobserver reliability and intraobserver reproducibility of the system of King et al. for the classification of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1998; 80A: 1107–11.
7. Lenke L, Betz R, Harms J, et al. Adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: a new classification to determine extent of spinal arthrodesis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2001; 83A: 1169–81.
8. Vedantam R, Lenke L, Keeney J, et al. Comparison of standing sagittal spinal alignment in asymptomatic adolescents and adults. Spine 1998; 23: 211–15.
9. Vedantam R, Lenke L, Bridwell K, et al. The effect of variation in arm position on sagittal spinal alignment. Spine 2000; 25: 2204–9.
10. Bridwell K, McAllister J, Betz R, et al. Coronal decompensation produced by Cotrel-Dubousset ‘derotation’ maneuver for idiopathic right thoracic scoliosis. Spine 1991; 16: 769–77.
11. Lenke L, Bridwell K, Baldus C, et al. Preventing decompensation in King type II curves treated with Cotrel-Dubousset instrumentation: strict guidelines for selective fusion. Spine 1992; 17S: 274–81.
12. Sanders AE, Bauman R, Brown H, et al. Selective anterior fusion of thoracolumbar/lumbar curves in adolescents: When can the associated thoracic curve be left unfused? Spine
2003;28:706–13; discussion 714.
13. Nash C, Moe J. A study of vertebral rotation. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1969; 51A: 223–9.
14. Haher TR, Gorup JM, Shin TM, et al. Results of the Scoliosis Research Society instrument for evaluation of surgical outcome in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: a multicenter study. Spine 1999; 24: 1435–40.
15. Lenke L, Betz R, Bridwell K, et al. Spontaneous lumbar curve coronal correction after selective anterior or posterior thoracic fusion in adolescent scoliosis. Spine 1999; 25: 1663–72.
16. McCance S, Denis F, Lonstein J, et al. Coronal and sagittal balance in surgically treated adolescent idiopathic scoliosis with the King II curve pattern. Spine 1998; 23: 2063–73.
17. Kalen V, Conklin M. The behavior of the unfused lumbar spine following selective thoracic fusion
for idiopathic scoliosis. Spine 1990; 15: 271–4.
18. Lenke L, Bridwell K, Baldus C, et al. Cotrel-Dubousset instrumentation for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. J Bone Joint Surg 1992; 74A: 1056–67.
19. Edgar M, Mehta M. Long-term follow-up of fused and unfused idiopathic scoliosis. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1998; 70B: 712–6.
20. Ginsberg HH, Goldstein LA, Robinson SC, et al. Back pain in postoperative idiopathic scoliosis: a long term follow-up study. Spine 1979; 4: 518.
21. Hayes M, Tompkins S, Herndon W, et al. Clinical and radiological evaluation of lumbosacral motion below fusion levels in idiopathic scoliosis. Spine 1998; 13: 1161–7.
22. Danielsson AJ, Cederlund CG, Elkholm S, et al. The prevalence of disc aging and back pain after fusion extending into the lower lumbar spine: a matched MR study twenty-five years after surgery for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Acta Radiol 2001; 42: 187–97.
23. Cochran T, Irstam L, Nachemson A. Long-term anatomic and functional changes in patients with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis treated by Harrington rod fusion. Spine 1983; 8: 578–84.
Keywords:© 2003 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Inc.
Lenke classification; selective thoracic fusion; selective thoracolumbar/lumbar fusion; spinal flexibility ] Spine 2003;28:S199–S207