Abstract
Objective: To assess the Universal Spine System and Kaneda Anterior Scoliosis System. Does one system have particular advantages over another?
Design: A retrospective review of patients with idiopathic scoliosis undergoing anterior fusion and instrumentation. The patients undergoing USS instrumentation were treated between 1994–1998, KASS patients 1997–2001.
Subjects: Thirty two consecutive patients were reviewed. Seventeen patients were in the USS group and 15 in the KASS group, 28/32 were female.
Outcome measures: Preoperative and postoperative radiographs, ISIS scans, and patient review. The in-patient notes were assessed for duration of surgery, blood loss, hospital stay and complications. Correction of Cobb angle and union were assessed.
Results: The patients in the KASS group had less flexible curves (correctability 45% vs. 53%). Despite this correction of Cobb angle was better in patients undergoing KASS instrumentation (38.0 degrees vs. 27.8 degrees, P=< 0.05). The secondary curves also improved more in the KASS group (55% vs. 29%, p=< 0.05). Complications occurred in 30%, but there was no difference between the two groups. There were no non-unions. In every other respect there was no difference between the groups for surgery time, blood loss, loss of correction or progression of secondary curve.
Conclusions: KASS instrumentation has better ability to correct spinal deformity in the short term. Further follow-up is required to assess long term results.
The abstracts were prepared by Mr Peter Millner. Correspondence should be addressed to Peter Millner, Consultant Spinal Surgeon, Orthopaedic Surgery, Chancellor Wing, Ward 28 Office Suite, St James’ University Hospital, Beckett Street, Leeds LS9 7TF.
