Is It Enough to Stop Distal Fusion at L3 in Mild to Moderate Lenke 5C Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis Patients?

Abstract

Objective: There has been no definitive conclusion on the selection of the lowest instrumented vertebra (LIV) in Lenke 5C adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) patients. The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether it is enough to stop distal fusion at L3 in mild to moderate Lenke 5C AIS patients with posterior selective lumbar fusion, Ponte osteotomies and segmental direct vertebra rotation and to analyze the risk factors for postoperative complications in patients selecting L3 as the LIV.

Methods: A retrospective review was conducted on 106 Lenke 5C AIS patients who underwent corrective surgery in our institution from 2010 to 2021, with a minimum 2-year follow-up. The LIV was L3 or L4. According to the LIV, patients were initially divided into Group I (the LIV was L3) and Group II (the LIV was L4). Then, Group I was further divided into a complication group and a non-complication group. Demographics, radiological parameters, postoperative complications, and clinical outcomes were recorded. Univariate analysis and multivariate logistic analysis were used to identify the risk factors for postoperative complications in patients with L3 as the LIV.

Results: There were no significant differences in the demographics, radiological parameters, postoperative complications, or clinical outcomes between Group I and Group II (p > 0.05), and the outcomes were satisfactory in both groups. The main postoperative complications were distal adding-on (11 cases), coronal imbalance (16 cases), proximal junctional kyphosis (2 cases), and internal fixation failure (4 cases). Logistic regression analysis revealed that age and postoperative C7-CSVL were independent predictors of postoperative complications when selecting L3 as the LIV.

Conclusion: Terminating the distal fusion level at L3 was practical for mild to moderate Lenke 5C AIS patients. For patients selecting L3 as the LIV, younger patients should be cautious, and maintaining postoperative coronal balance is necessary for avoiding postoperative complications.

Keywords

adolescent idiopathic scoliosis / Lenke 5 / lowest instrumented vertebra / posterior fusion

References

[1] J. F. Sarwark, R. M. Castelein, A. Maqsood, and C. E. Aubin, “The Biomechanics of Induction in Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis: Theoretical Factors,” Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. American Volume 101, no. 6 (2019): e22.

[2] T. J. Crijns, A. Stadhouder, and T. H. Smit, “Restrained Differential Growth: The Initiating Event of Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis?,” Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 42, no. 12 (2017): E726–E732.

[3] S. L. Weinstein, L. A. Dolan, J. C. Cheng, A. Danielsson, and J. A. Morcuende, “Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis,” Lancet 371, no. 9623 (2008): 1527–1537.

[4] L. G. Lenke, R. R. Betz, J. Harms, et al., “Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis: A New Classification to Determine Extent of Spinal Arthrodesis,” Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. American Volume 83, no. 8 (2001): 1169–1181.

[5] M. J. Geck, A. Rinella, D. Hawthorne, et al., “Comparison of Surgical Treatment in Lenke 5C Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis: Anterior Dual Rod Versus Posterior Pedicle Fixation Surgery: A Comparison of Two Practices,” Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 34, no. 18 (2009): 1942–1951.

[6] H. L. Shufflebarger, M. J. Geck, and C. E. Clark, “The Posterior Approach for Lumbar and Thoracolumbar Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis: Posterior Shortening and Pedicle Screws,” Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 29, no. 3 (2004): 269–276.

[7] T. Banno, Y. Yamato, H. Oba, et al., “Should L3 Be Selected as the Lowest Instrumented Vertebra in Patients With Lenke Type 5C Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis Whose Lowest End Vertebra Is L4?,” Journal of Neurosurgery. Spine 35, no. 3 (2021): 330–339.

[8] C. S. Lee, J. K. Ha, C. J. Hwang, D. H. Lee, T. H. Kim, and J. H. Cho, “Is It Enough to Stop Distal Fusion at L3 in Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis With Major Thoracolumbar/Lumbar Curves?,” European Spine Journal 25, no. 10 (2016): 3256–3264.

[9] S. J. Hyun, L. G. Lenke, Y. Kim, K. H. Bridwell, M. Cerpa, and K. M. Blanke, “Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis Treated by Posterior Spinal Segmental Instrumented Fusion: When Is Fusion to L3 Stable?,” Journal of Korean Neurosurgical Association 64, no. 5 (2021): 776–783.

[10] K. Ando, S. Imagama, Z. Ito, et al., “Predictive Factors for a Distal Adjacent Disorder With L3 as the Lowest Instrumented Vertebra in Lenke 5C Patients,” European Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Traumatology 26, no. 1 (2016): 59–66.

[11] Y. Liu, M. Li, X. D. Zhu, et al., “Retrospective Analysis of Anterior Correction and Fusion for Adolescent Idiopathic Thoracolumbar/Lumbar Scoliosis: The Relationship Between Preserving Mobile Segments and Trunk Balance,” International Orthopaedics 33, no. 1 (2009): 191–196.

[12] Z. Li, Y. Du, Y. Zhao, et al., “Lowest Instrumented Vertebra at L3 Versus L4 in Posterior Fusion for Moderate Lenke 5C Type Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis: A Case-Match Radiological Study,” Neurospine 20, no. 4 (2023): 1380–1388.

[13] Z. Sun, G. Qiu, Y. Zhao, Y. Wang, J. Zhang, and J. Shen, “Lowest Instrumented Vertebrae Selection for Selective Posterior Fusion of Moderate Thoracolumbar/Lumbar Idiopathic Scoliosis: Lower-End Vertebra or Lower-End Vertebra+1?,” European Spine Journal 23, no. 6 (2014): 1251–1257.

[14] Q. Zhuang, J. Zhang, S. Wang, Y. Yang, and G. Lin, “How to Select the Lowest Instrumented Vertebra in Lenke Type 5 Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis Patients?,” Spine Journal 21, no. 1 (2021): 141–149.

[15] A. J. Danielsson, K. Romberg, and A. L. Nachemson, “Spinal Range of Motion, Muscle Endurance, and Back Pain and Function at Least 20 Years After Fusion or Brace Treatment for Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis: A Case-Control Study,” Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 31, no. 3 (2006): 275–283.

[16] H. A. King, J. H. Moe, D. S. Bradford, and R. B. Winter, “The Selection of Fusion Levels in Thoracic Idiopathic Scoliosis,” Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. American Volume 65, no. 9 (1983): 1302–1313.

[17] C. S. Lee, C. J. Hwang, D. H. Lee, and J. H. Cho, “Five Major Controversial Issues About Fusion Level Selection in Corrective Surgery for Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis: A Narrative Review,” Spine Journal 17, no. 7 (2017): 1033–1044.

[18] B. S. Lonner, Y. Ren, V. V. Upasani, et al., “Disc Degeneration in Unfused Caudal Motion Segments Ten Years Following Surgery for Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis,” Spine Deformity 6, no. 6 (2018): 684–690.

[19] A. Nohara, N. Kawakami, K. Seki, et al., “The Effects of Spinal Fusion on Lumbar Disc Degeneration in Patients With Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis: A Minimum 10-Year Follow-Up,” Spine Deformity 3, no. 5 (2015): 462–468.

[20] C. L. Nash, Jr. and J. H. Moe, “A Study of Vertebral Rotation,” Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. American Volume 51, no. 2 (1969): 223–229.

[21] L. G. Lenke, K. H. Bridwell, C. Baldus, K. Blanke, and P. L. Schoenecker, “Ability of Cotrel-Dubousset Instrumentation to Preserve Distal Lumbar Motion Segments in Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis,” Journal of Spinal Disorders 6, no. 4 (1993): 339–350.

[22] S. S. Kim, D. J. Lim, J. H. Kim, et al., “Determination of the Distal Fusion Level in the Management of Thoracolumbar and Lumbar Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis Using Pedicle Screw Instrumentation,” Asian Spine Journal 8, no. 6 (2014): 804–812.

[23] D. G. Chang, J. H. Yang, S. I. Suk, et al., “Importance of Distal Fusion Level in Major Thoracolumbar and Lumbar Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis Treated by Rod Derotation and Direct Vertebral Rotation Following Pedicle Screw Instrumentation,” Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 42, no. 15 (2017): E890–E898.

[24] C. S. Lee, J. K. Ha, D. G. Kim, C. J. Hwang, D. H. Lee, and J. H. Cho, “The Clinical Importance of Lumbosacral Transitional Vertebra in Patients With Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis,” Spine (Phila pa 1976) 40, no. 17 (2015): E964–E970.

[25] C. S. Lee, J. K. Ha, D. G. Kim, et al., “The Clinical Importance of Sacral Slanting in Patients With Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis Undergoing Surgery,” Spine Journal 15, no. 5 (2015): 834–840.

[26] R. Ding, J. Liang, G. Qiu, J. Shen, and Z. Li, “Evaluation of Quality of Life in Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis With Different Distal Fusion Level: A Comparison of L3 Versus L4,” Journal of Spinal Disorders & Techniques 27, no. 5 (2014): E155–E161.

[27] R. H. Cho, B. Yaszay, C. E. Bartley, T. P. Bastrom, and P. O. Newton, “Which Lenke 1A Curves Are at the Greatest Risk for Adding-On… and Why?,” Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 37, no. 16 (2012): 1384–1390.

[28] S. Shu, H. Bao, Y. Zhang, et al., “Selection of Distal Fusion Level for Lenke 5 Curve: Does the Rotation of the Presumed Lower Instrumented Vertebra Matter?,” Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 45, no. 12 (2020): E688–E693.

[29] Y. Wang, C. E. Bunger, Y. Zhang, et al., “Lowest Instrumented Vertebra Selection for Lenke 5C Scoliosis: A Minimum 2-Year Radiographical Follow-Up,” Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 38, no. 14 (2013): E894–E900.

[30] K. Satake, L. G. Lenke, Y. J. Kim, et al., “Analysis of the Lowest Instrumented Vertebra Following Anterior Spinal Fusion of Thoracolumbar/Lumbar Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis: Can We Predict Postoperative Disc Wedging?,” Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 30, no. 4 (2005): 418–426.

[31] X. Shao, W. Sui, Y. Deng, J. Yang, J. Chen, and J. Yang, “How to Select the Lowest Instrumented Vertebra in Lenke 5/6 Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis Patients With Derotation Technique,” European Spine Journal 31, no. 4 (2022): 996–1005.

[32] J. Burgos, E. Hevia, I. Sanpera, et al., “Incidence and Risk Factors of Distal Adjacent Disc Degeneration in Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis Patients Undergoing Fusion Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis,” European Spine Journal 33, no. 4 (2024): 1624–1636.

RIGHTS & PERMISSIONS

2024 The Author(s). Orthopaedic Surgery published by Tianjin Hospital and John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd.