Abstract
Aim:
The introduction of novel systems for correction of scoliosis should be subject to critical analysis and based on patient benefit.
Methods:
Retrospective analysis of prospective data from a single surgeon consecutive series of Lenke 1 type curves. The two cohorts compared K2M and AOUSS2. Pre and Post operation Cobb angle, flexibility, absolute correction rate, implant related correction, levels fused, implant density, implant cost and cost per Cobb improvement analysis were collected.
Results:
A total of 26 patients were analysed, 13 in each group. Both groups were similar in pre-operative parameters. The mean age was 14.62 and 14.23 respectively. The mean pre-operation Cobb angle was 71 (96–53) K2M and 70 (85–56) AOUSS2 bending to 45 in each. The flexibility was similar as was the correction in both. Post op Cobb 28 (42–16) K2M and Cobb 28 (44–16) AOUSS2. The implant density and number of screws used was similar. The average cost per construct was £6554 for K2M and £6140 AOUSS2.
Discussion:
Using these simple and immediate outcome measures and a grossly simplified cost analysis there was a cost difference of £5382 with no measurable clinical advantage or disadvantage in curves of similar flexibility. The cost per case is determined by implant density and curve flexibility. In the least complex of scoliosis cases there needs to be evidence of benefit to justify the increased resource allocation in a health care system that is not fiscally driven.
Conflict Of Interest Statement: No conflict of interest.
