Is the Combination of Convex Compression for the Proximal Thoracic Curve and Concave Distraction for the Main Thoracic Curve Using Separate-rod Derotation Effective for Correcting Shoulder Balance and Thoracic Kyphosis?

Abstract

Background Posterior correction of the proximal thoracic curve in patients with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis has been recommended to achieve shoulder balance. However, finding a good surgical method is challenging because of the small pedicle diameters on the concave side of the proximal thoracic curve. If the shoulder height can be corrected using screws on the convex side, this would appear to be a more feasible approach. Questions/purposes In patients with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis, we asked: (1) Is convex compression with separate-rod derotation effective for correcting the proximal thoracic curve, shoulder balance, and thoracic kyphosis? (2) Which vertebrum is most appropriate to serve as the uppermost-instrumented vertebra? (3) Is correction of the proximal thoracic curve related to the postoperative shoulder balance? Methods Between 2015 and 2017, we treated 672 patients with scoliosis. Of those, we considered patients with elevated left shoulder, Lenke Type 2 or 4, or King Type V idiopathic scoliosis as potentially eligible. Based on that, 17% (111 of 672) were eligible; 5% (6 of 111) were excluded because of other previous operations and left-side main thoracic curve, 22% (24 of 111) were excluded because they did not undergo surgery for the proximal thoracic curve with only pedicle screws, 21% (23 of 111) were excluded because the proximal thoracic curve was not corrected by convex compression and separate rod derotation, and another 3% (3 of 111) were lost before the minimum study follow-up of 2 years, leaving 50% (55 of 111) for analysis. During the study period, we generally chose T2 as the uppermost level instrumented when the apex was above T4, or T3 when the apex was T5. Apart from the uppermost-instrumented level, the groups did not differ in measurable ways such as age, sex, Cobb angles of proximal and main thoracic curves, and T1 tilt. However, shoulder balance was better in the T3 group preoperatively. The median (range) age at the time of surgery was 15 years (12 to 19 years). The median follow-up duration was 26 months (24 to 52 months). Whole-spine standing posteroanterior and lateral views were used to evaluate the improvement of radiologic parameters at the most recent follow-up and to compare the radiologic parameters between the uppermost-instrumented T2 (37 patients) and T3 (18 patients) vertebra groups. Finally, we analyzed radiologic factors related to shoulder balance, defined as the difference between the horizontal lines passing both superolateral tips of the clavicles (right-shoulder-up was positive), at the most recent follow-up. Results Convex compression with separate-rod derotation effectively corrected the proximal thoracic curve (41° ± 11° versus 17° ± 10°, mean difference 25° [95% CI 22° to 27°]; p < 0.001), and the most recent shoulder balance changed to right-shoulder-down compared with preoperative right-shoulder-up (8 ± 11 mm versus -8 ± 10 mm, mean difference 16 mm [95% CI 12 to 19]; p < 0.001). Proximal thoracic kyphosis decreased (13° ± 7° versus 11° ± 6°, mean difference 2° [95% CI 0° to 3°]; p = 0.02), while mid-thoracic kyphosis increased (12° ± 8° versus 18° ± 6°, mean difference -7° [95% CI -9° to -4°]; p < 0.001). Preoperative radiographic parameters did not differ between the groups, except for shoulder balance, which tended to be more right-shoulder-up in the T2 group (11 ± 10 mm versus 1 ± 11 mm, mean difference 10 mm [95% CI 4 to 16]; p = 0.002). At the most recent follow-up, the correction proportion of the proximal thoracic curve was better in the T2 group than the T3 group (67% ± 10% versus 49% ± 22%, mean difference 19% [95% CI 8% to 30%]; p < 0.001). In the T2 group, T1 tilt (6° ± 4° versus 6° ± 4°, mean difference 1° [95% CI 0° to 2°]; p = 0.045) and shoulder balance (-14 ± 11 mm versus -7 ± 9 mm, mean difference -7 mm [95% CI -11 to -3]; p = 0.002) at the most recent follow-up improved compared with those at the first erect radiograph. The most recent shoulder balance was correlated with the correction proportion of the proximal thoracic curve (r = 0.29 [95% CI 0.02 to 0.34]; p = 0.03) and change in T1 tilt (r = 0.35 [95% CI 0.20 to 1.31]; p = 0.009). Conclusion Using the combination of convex compression and concave distraction with separate-rod derotation is an effective method to correct proximal and main thoracic curves, with reliable achievement of postoperative thoracic kyphosis and shoulder balance. T2 was a more appropriate uppermost-instrumented vertebra than T3, providing better correction of the proximal thoracic curve and T1 tilt. Additionally, spontaneous improvement in T1 tilt and shoulder balance is expected with upper-instrumented T2 vertebrae. Preoperatively, surgeons should evaluate shoulder balance because right-shoulder-down can occur after surgery in patients with a proximal thoracic curve. Level of Evidence Level III, therapeutic study.

CORR Insights®: Is the Combination of Convex Compression for the Proximal Thoracic Curve and Concave Distraction for the Main Thoracic Curve Using Separate-rod Derotation Effective for Correcting Shoulder Balance and Thoracic Kyphosis?

“…By these means, they have shown acceptable shoulder symmetry and T1 tilt, with no proximal junctional kyphosis. Lee and colleagues [4] did not have a control group in this retrospective study, so we cannot tell whether other techniques may have led to similar or even better results. Still, the results they present would be considered acceptable by most spine surgeons, and their reasoning is certainly compelling, particularly with regard to rotating the proximal rod into normal kyphosis rather than lordosis, as would have been obligatory if the rod were not separated from that stabilizing the lower thoracic curve.…”

“…The current study by Lee and colleagues [4] addresses treatment in one segment of patients with idiopathic scoliosis, namely those with a structural proximal curve, but more specifically, those classified as Lenke 2 or 4 or King 5. In these patients, most scoliosis surgeons would consider extending the rods to include the proximal curve, but the specifics of how this should be done have not been delineated.…”

“…In the current study, Lee and colleagues [4] have helped to fill that knowledge gap with good data using a treatment approach that respects both the regional anatomy and the goals of attaining stabilization in a position that can improve regularity of the spine, trunk, shoulders, and head posture in all dimensions.…”

“…Lee and colleagues’ [4] technique of clockwise derotation of a proximal rod segment bent to match the scoliotic curve has the potential to induce more kyphosis than desired in the proximal segment. They attempted to minimize this possibility by leaving the interspinous ligaments intact and compressing on the convex side.…”

Thoracic Curve Correction Ratio: An Objective Measure to Guide against Overcorrection of a Main Thoracic Curve in the Setting of a Structural Proximal Thoracic Curve

“…Ultimately the TCCR is intended as a tool to aid in the determination of the relative extent of PT and MT coronal plane correction in patients’ double thoracic (Lenke 2) curves. While prior studies have shown that over-correction of the main thoracic curve compared to the proximal thoracic curve can lead to shoulder imbalance, it is the author’s goal to quantify this mismatch [ 13 , 14 ]. The TCCR measure displayed a significant negative correlation with postoperative T1 tilt at final follow-up.…”