header advert
Orthopaedic Proceedings Logo

Receive monthly Table of Contents alerts from Orthopaedic Proceedings

Comprehensive article alerts can be set up and managed through your account settings

View my account settings

Visit Orthopaedic Proceedings at:

Loading...

Loading...

Full Access

Spine

DOUBLE-ROD VERSUS SINGLE-ROD INSTRUMENTATION FOR THE CORRECTION OF NEUROMUSCULAR SCOLIOSIS (NMS)

The British Scoliosis Research Foundation (BSRF) 17th International Phillip Zorab Symposium, London, England, 23–24 June 2022.



Abstract

Less invasive single-rod fusion technique may be indicated in the management of NMS to minimise operative time, blood loss and wound-related complications. This retrospective 12-year cohort study (2008–2020) aims to evaluate and compare the outcomes of this technique to the current standard dual rod technique to determine their safety and efficacy.

28 patients in the single rod group (Mean age = 16.4 [SD ±4.0]) and 30 in the double rod group (Mean age = 16.3 [SD±3.5]). Indications included a minimum 2 year follow period, detailed information on the type of implant and a complete pre- and post-operative imaging and medical records. Baseline demographics, comorbidities, and surgical characteristics were collected. Outcomes assessed included the immediate post-op and final follow up angles and general complications. All outcome analysis was performed using a regression approach.

Angles at final follow-up: lumbar (Difference ratio (DR)= 2.60 [95% CI 0.37 – 18.4], p=0.25), thoracic (DR= 1.08 [95% CI 0.19 – 6.28], p=0.92), thoracolumbar (major curve angle) (DR 1.35 [95% CI 0.60 – 3.06], p=0.46) and kyphosis (DR = 0.97 [0.66, 1.42] p=0.86). There was no statistically significant difference, between the two groups, for any of the above angle outcomes as well as for length of surgery, blood loss and complication outcomes.

Both single and double rod instrumentation achieves satisfactory and safe deformity correction which is maintained at final follow up. A larger scale study is warranted to further assess these techniques while also conducting a cost-benefit analysis between them.


Email: