Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Preoperative left shoulder elevation > 1 cm is predictive of severe postoperative shoulder imbalance in early onset idiopathic scoliosis patients treated with growth-friendly instrumentation

  • Case Series
  • Published:
Spine Deformity Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

Prior research has demonstrated the influence of preoperative shoulder elevation (SE), proximal thoracic curve magnitude, and upper instrumented vertebra (UIV) on shoulder balance after PSF for AIS. Our purpose was to evaluate the impact of these factors on shoulder balance in early onset idiopathic scoliosis (EOIS) patients treated with growth-friendly instrumentation.

Methods

This was a multicenter retrospective review. Children with EOIS treated with dual TGR, MCGR, or VEPTR and minimum 2-year follow-up were identified. Demographics and radiographic/surgical data were collected.

Results

145 patients met inclusion criteria: 74 had right SE (RSE), 49 left SE (LSE), and 22 even shoulders (EVEN) preoperatively. Mean follow-up was 5.3 years (range, 2.0–13.1 years). The LSE group had a larger pre-index mean main thoracic curve (p = 0.021) but no difference was observed between groups at the post-index or most recent timepoints. RSE patients with UIV of T2 were more likely to have balanced shoulders post-index than patients with UIV of T3 or T4 (p = 0.011).

Pre-index radiographic shoulder height (RSH) was predictive of post-index shoulder imbalance ≥ 2 cm in the LSE group (p = 0.007). A ROC curve showed a cut-off of 1.0 cm for RSH. 0/16 LSE patients with pre-index RSH < 1.0 cm had post-index shoulder imbalance ≥ 2 cm compared to 8/28 (29%) patients with pre-index RSH > 1.0 cm (p = 0.006).

Conclusion

Preoperative LSE > 1.0 cm is predictive of shoulder imbalance ≥ 2 cm after insertion of TGR, MCGR, or VEPTR in children with EOIS. In patients with preoperative RSE, UIV of T2 resulted in a higher likelihood of balanced shoulders postoperatively.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

Availability of data and materials

The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Code availability

The software application and code used for the statistical analysis are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

References

  1. Yang S, Andras LM, Redding GJ, Skaggs DL (2016) Early-onset scoliosis: a review of history, current treatment, and future directions. Pediatrics. https://doi.org/10.1542/PEDS.2015-0709/52909

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Karol LA (2011) Early definitive spinal fusion in young children what we have learned. Clin Orthop Relat Res. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-010-1622-z

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Kuklo TR, Lenke LG, Graham EJ et al (2002) Correlation of radiographic, clinical, and patient assessment of shoulder balance following fusion versus nonfusion of the proximal thoracic curve in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 27(18):2013–2020. https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-200209150-00009

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Smith PL, Donaldson S, Hedden D et al (2006) Parents’ and patients’ perceptions of postoperative appearance in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 31(20):2367–2374. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.BRS.0000240204.98960.DD

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Chan P, Skaggs DL, Sanders AE et al (2017) Pain is the greatest preoperative concern for patients and parents before posterior spinal fusion for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 42(21):E1245–E1250. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000002147

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Smyrnis PN, Sekouris N, Papadopoulos G (2009) Surgical assessment of the proximal thoracic curve in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Eur Spine J 18(4):522. https://doi.org/10.1007/S00586-009-0902-3

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Bram JT, Mehta N, Flynn JM et al (2021) Sinister! The high pre-op left shoulder is less likely to be radiographically balanced at 2 years post-op. Spine Deform 9(2):451–460. https://doi.org/10.1007/S43390-020-00236-9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Suk S, Kim WJ, Lee CS et al (2000) Indications of proximal thoracic curve fusion in thoracic adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: recognition and treatment of double thoracic curve pattern in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis treated with segmental instrumentation. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 25(18):2342–2349. https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-200009150-00012

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Lee CS, Hwang CJ, Lee DH, Cho JH (2019) Does fusion to T2 compared with T3/T4 lead to improved shoulder balance in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis with a double thoracic curve? J Pediatr Orthop B 28(1):32–39. https://doi.org/10.1097/BPB.0000000000000520

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Rose PS, Lenke LG (2007) Classification of operative adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: treatment guidelines. Orthop Clin North Am 38(4):521–529. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.OCL.2007.06.001

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Ilharreborde B, Even J, Lefevre Y et al (2008) How to determine the upper level of instrumentation in Lenke types 1 and 2 adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: a prospective study of 132 patients. J Pediatr Orthop 28(7):733–739. https://doi.org/10.1097/BPO.0B013E318185A36B

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Liu Z, Liu T, Hai Y et al (2021) Evaluation of changes in shoulder balance and prediction of final shoulder imbalance during growing-rod treatment for early-onset scoliosis. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 22(1):1–11. https://doi.org/10.1186/S12891-021-04221-9/TABLES/3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Üzümcügil O, Atici Y, Ozturkmen Y, Yalcinkaya M, Caniklioglu M (2012) Evaluation of shoulder balance through growing rod intervention for early-onset scoliosis. J Spinal Disord Tech 25(7):391–400. https://doi.org/10.1097/BSD.0B013E318227B52D

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Matsumoto H, Williams B, Park HY et al (2018) The final 24-item early onset scoliosis questionnaires (EOSQ-24): validity reliability and responsiveness. J Pediatr Orthop 38(3):144–151. https://doi.org/10.1097/BPO.0000000000000799

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Kuklo TR, Lenke LG, Won DS et al (2001) Spontaneous proximal thoracic curve correction after isolated fusion of the main thoracic curve in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 26(18):1966–1975. https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-200109150-00006

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Ginsburg H, Goldstein L, DeVanny J. (1997) An evaluation of the upper thoracic curve in idiopathic scoliosis: guidelines in the selection of the fusion area. In: Scoliosis Research Society

  17. Akbarnia BA, Marks DS, Boachie-Adjei O, Thompson AG, Asher MA (2005) Dual growing rod technique for the treatment of progressive early-onset scoliosis: a multicenter study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). https://doi.org/10.1097/01.BRS.0000175190.08134.73

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Sawyer JR, de Mendonça RGM, Flynn TS et al (2016) Complications and radiographic outcomes of posterior spinal fusion and observation in patients who have undergone distraction-based treatment for early onset scoliosis. Spine Deform 4(6):407–412. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JSPD.2016.08.007

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Flynn JM, Tomlinson LA, Pawelek J, Thompson GH, McCarthy R, Akbarnia BA (2013) Growing-rod graduates: lessons learned from ninety-nine patients who completed lengthening. J Bone Joint Surg Am 95(19):1745–1750. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.L.01386

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Harris L, Andras LM, Mundis GM, Sponseller PD, Emans JB, Skaggs DL (2020) Five or more proximal anchors and including upper end vertebra protects against reoperation in distraction-based growing rods. Spine Deform 8(4):781–786. https://doi.org/10.1007/S43390-020-00064-X

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Lenke LG, Betz RR, Harms J et al (2001) Adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: a new classification to determine extent of spinal arthrodesis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 83(8):1169–1181

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Asher M, Lai SM, Burton D, Manna B (2003) The reliability and concurrent validity of the scoliosis research society22 patient questionnaire for idiopathic scoliosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 28(1):63–69. https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-200301010-00015

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Matsumoto H, Boby AZ, Sinha R et al (2022) Development and validation of a health-related quality-of-life measure in older children and adolescents with early-onset scoliosis: early-onset scoliosis self-report questionnaire (EOSQ-SELF). J Bone Joint Surg Am 104(15):1393–1405. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.21.01508

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The Pediatric Spine Study Group includes: Abdullah Saad Abdulfattah Abdullah, Edward Ahn, Behrooz Akbarnia, Harry Akoto, Stephen Albanese, Jason Anari, John Anderson, Richard Anderson, Lindsay Andras, Jennifer Bauer, Laura Bellaire, Randy Betz, Craig Birch, Laurel Blakemore, Oheneba Boachie-Adjei, Chris Bonfield, Daniel Bouton, Felix Brassard, Douglas Brockmeyer, Jaysson Brooks, David Bumpass, Pat Cahill, Olivier Chemaly, Jason Cheung, Kenneth Cheung, Robert Cho, Tyler Christman, Eduardo Colom Beauchamp, Daniel Couture, Haemish Crawford, Alvin Crawford, Benny Dahl, Gokhan Demirkiran, Dennis Devito, Mohammad Diab, Hazem El Sebaie, Ron El-Hawary, John Emans, Mark Erickson, Jorge Fabregas, Frances Farley, David Farrington, Graham Fedorak, Ryan Fitzgerald, Lorena Floccari, Jack Flynn, Peter Gabos, Adrian Gardner, Sumeet Garg, Frank Gerow, Michael Glotzbecker, Jaime Gomez, David Gonda, Tenner Guillaume, Purnendu Gupta, Kyle Halvorson, Kim Hammerberg, Christina Hardesty, Daniel Hedequist, Michael Heffernan, John Heflin, Ilkka Helenius, Jose Herrera, Grant Hogue, Josh Holt, Jason Howard, Michael Timothy Hresko, Steven Hwang, Stephanie Ihnow, Brice Ilharreborde, Kenneth Illingworth, Viral Jain, Andrew Jea, Megan Johnson, Charles Johnston, Morgan Jones, Judson Karlen, Lawrence Karlin, Danielle Katz, Noriaki Kawakami, Brian Kelly, Derek Kelly, Raymond Knapp, Paul Koljonen, Kenny Kwan, Hubert Labelle, Robert Lark, A. Noelle Larson, William Lavelle, Lawrence Lenke, Sean Lew, Ying Li, Craig Louer, Scott Luhmann, Jean-Marc Mac-Thiong, Stuart Mackenzie, Erin MacKintosh, Francesco Mangano, David Marks, Sanchez Marquez, Jonathan Martin, Jeffrey Martus, Antonia Matamalas, Oscar Mayer, Richard McCarthy, Amy McIntosh, Jessica McQuerry, Jwalant Mehta, Lionel Metz, Daniel Miller, Firoz Miyanji, Greg Mundis, Josh Murphy, Robert Murphy, Karen Myung, Susan Nelson, Peter Newton, Matthew Newton Ede, Cynthia Nguyen, Susana Nunez, Matthew Oetgen, Timothy Oswald, Jean Ouellet, Josh Pahys, Kathryn Palomino, Stefan Parent, Alejandro Peiro Garcia, Ferran Pellise, Joseph Perra, Jonathan Phillips, Javier Pizones, Selina Poon, Nigel Price, Norman Ramirez-Lluch, Brandon Ramo, Gregory Redding, Todd Ritzman, LuisRodriguez, Juan Carlos Rodriguez-Olaverri, David Roye, Benjamin Roye, Lisa Saiman, Amer Samdani, Francisco Sanchez Perez-Grueso, James Sanders, Jeffrey Sawyer, Christina Sayama, Michael Schmitz, Jacob Schulz, Richard Schwend, Suken Shah, Jay Shapiro, Harry Shufflebarger, David Skaggs, Kevin Smit, John Smith, Brian Snyder, Paul Sponseller, George Stephen, Joe Stone, Peter Sturm, Hamdi Sukkarieh, Ishaan Swarup, Michal Szczodry, John Thometz, George Thompson, TanakaTomoko, Walter Truong, Raphael Vialle, Michael Vitale, John Vorhies, Eric Wall, Shengru Wang, Bill Warner, Stuart Weinstein, Michelle Welborn, Klane White, David Wrubel, Nan Wu, Kwadwo Yankey, Burt Yaszay, Muharrem Yazici, Terry Jianguo Zhang.

Funding

The study was funded by departmental resources.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Consortia

Contributions

YL: Made substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; performed analysis and interpretation of data; drafted the work; approved the version to be published; agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved. DY: Drafted the work; approved the version to be published; agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved. RB: Performed acquisition of data; revised the work critically for important intellectual content; approved the version to be published; agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved. SJ: Performed analysis of data; revised the work critically for important intellectual content; approved the version to be published; agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved. MC: Performed analysis of data; revised the work critically for important intellectual content; approved the version to be published; agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved. JTS: Revised the work critically for important intellectual content; approved the version to be published; agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved. MV: Revised the work critically for important intellectual content; approved the version to be published; agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved. MH: Performed analysis and interpretation of data; revised the work critically for important intellectual content; approved the version to be published; agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved. Pediatric Spine Study Group: Performed acquisition of data; revised the work critically for important intellectual content; approved the version to be published; agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ying Li.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

Dr. Li has received research grants from the Scoliosis Research Society, has received consulting fees from Medtronic, has received support for travel from Zimmer-Biomet, and is the Chair of the Scoliosis Research Society’s Outcomes and Benchmarking Committee. Dr. Smith has received royalties from Globus Medical, has received consulting fees from Wishbone and Zimvie, participates on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board for the Pediatric Spine Study Group, and is a board member of the Pediatric Spine Foundation. Dr. Vitale has received research grants from the Pediatric Orthopaedic Society of North America, Orthopaedic Scientific Research Foundation, Pediatric Spine Foundation, and Setting Scoliosis Straight Foundation; has received royalties from Biomet; has received consulting fees from Stryker, Biomet, and NuVasive; and is a board member of the Pediatric Spine Study Group, Pediatric Orthopaedic Society of North America, International Pediatric Orthopaedic Symposium, and Cure 4 the Kids Foundation. The Pediatric Spine Study Group is supported by the Pediatric Spine Foundation; has received research funding from DePuy Synthes Spine, Medtronic, NuVasive, OrthoPediatrics, and Zimmer Biomet; and has received educational support from ATEC Spine, Children’s Hospital Colorado Orthopedics Institute, DePuy Synthes, Globus Medical, Intermountain Primary Children’s Hospital, Medtronic, nView Medical, NuVasive, OrthoPediatrics, Stryker, and ZimVie. The remaining authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Ethical approval

IRB approval, University of Michigan, HUM 00082789, 1/7/14.

Consent to participate

Informed consent to participate in this study was obtained from the parent or legal guardian of all participants.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Li, Y., Yang, D., Bergman, R. et al. Preoperative left shoulder elevation > 1 cm is predictive of severe postoperative shoulder imbalance in early onset idiopathic scoliosis patients treated with growth-friendly instrumentation. Spine Deform 11, 1157–1167 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s43390-023-00696-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s43390-023-00696-9

Keywords

Navigation