Objective: Hemivertebrae in the cervicothoracic junction in the pediatric population are treated conventionally with a two-rod instrumentation pattern. However, the increase in complexity, severity, and immaturity of osseous malformation in the cervicothoracic spine presents additional challenges in construct planning. This study aims to introduce an integrated instrumentation strategy named the sequential correction technique in the treatment of congenital cervicothoracic scoliosis caused by hemivertebra (CTS-HV) and evaluate its feasibility and treatment effects.
Methods: We retrospectively analyzed a consecutive series of patients with CTS-HV who underwent posterior-only HV resection with sequential correction technique from March 2018 to November 2023. This technique employed multiple rods, each being designated for a specific task, to sequentially perform surgical maneuvers involving osteotomy closure, torticollis correction, and implant integration. Individualized adjustments on instrumentation configuration involving rod number, rod type (whole, segmental, or satellite), cervical anchor choice, and connector placement could be made according to the severity of CTS and cervical pedicle dysplasia. Radiographic deformity parameters of the head–neck–shoulder complex were measured preoperatively, postoperatively, and at the latest follow-up. One-way repeated measures analysis of variance and Bonferroni correction were used to compare data at different time points. Additionally, any complications that occurred intraoperatively and during follow-up would be recorded.
Results: Twenty-two pediatric and adolescent patients were recruited with a mean age of 8.3 ± 3.7 years. The ratio for the location of the resected CTS-HVs were C6 (4.6%), C7 (13.6%), T1 (31.8%), T2 (9.1%), T3 (27.6%), and T4 (13.6%). All patients were instrumented with screw-hook hybrid constructs, of which 3-rod and 4-rod constructs accounted for 81.8% and 18.2%, respectively. The cervicothoracic scoliosis, T1 tilt, neck tilt, clavicular angle, head tilt, and head shift were all significantly corrected from 53.1° ± 11.4°, 25.3° ± 10.1°, 19.6° ± 9.3°, 4.5° ± 3.1°, 10.7° ± 8.3°, and 21.8 ± 18.0 mm preoperatively to 20.8° ± 7.6°, 14.4° ± 7.2°, 7.3° ± 6.5°, 2.3° ± 2.6°, 4.4° ± 2.5°, and 9.8 ± 8.8 mm postoperatively (all p < 0.05). No significant correction loss was observed at the final follow-up (all p > 0.05). The incidences of intraoperative dural tear and iatrogenic Horner's syndrome were both 4.6%. Transitory bilateral nerve root paralysis causing upper limb dysfunction occurred in 1 patient. Additionally, 3 patients suffered severe distal curve progression with trunk tilt and were surgically revised with instrumentation extending to the stable zone. No implant-related complications were observed.
Conclusions: This modified sequential correction technique possesses the merits of easy rod installation, satisfying torticollis correction, good symmetry and verticality of the entire instrumentation, and high fixation rigidity with multi-rod constructs across the cervicothoracic junction. Thus, it is endowed with great application values in the treatment of CTS.
| [1] |
S. Simon, M. Davis, D. Odhner, J. Udupa, and B. Winkelstein, “CT Imaging Techniques for Describing Motions of the Cervicothoracic Junction and Cervical Spine During Flexion, Extension, and Cervical Traction,” Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 31, no. 1 (2006): 44-50, https://doi.org/10.1097/01.brs.0000192679.25878.f9.
|
| [2] |
J. J. W. Boyle, N. Milne, and K. P. Singer, “Influence of Age on Cervicothoracic Spinal Curvature: An Ex Vivo Radiographic Survey,” Clinical Biomechanics (Bristol, Avon) 17 (2002): 361-367.
|
| [3] |
M. D. Smith, “Congenital Scoliosis of the Cervical or Cervicothoracic Spine,” Orthopedic Clinics of North America 25 (1994): 301-310.
|
| [4] |
S. Cao, X. Chen, S. Pan, et al., “Evaluation and Comparation of a Novel Surgical Technique and Hemivertebra Resection to the Correction of Congenital Cervical Scoliosis in Lower Cervical and Cervicothoracic Spine,” Neurospine 19 (2022): 1071-1083.
|
| [5] |
B. W. Burkhardt, C. Meyer, G. Wagenpfeil, et al., “The Effect of Cervicodorsal Hemivertebra Resection on Head Tilt and Trunk Shift in Children With Congenital Scoliosis,” Journal of Pediatric Orthopedics 40 (2020): e256-e65.
|
| [6] |
S. Wang, G. Lin, Y. Yang, et al., “Outcomes of 360° Osteotomy in the Cervicothoracic Spine (C7-T1) for Congenital Cervicothoracic Kyphoscoliosis in Children,” Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. American Volume 101 (2019): 1357-1365.
|
| [7] |
Y. Huang, G. Feng, L. Liu, et al., “Posterior Hemivertebral Resection for Upper Thoracic Congenital Scoliosis: Be Aware of High Risk of Complications,” Journal of Pediatric Orthopedics. Part B 28 (2019): 1-9.
|
| [8] |
M. Yu, Y. Diao, Y. Sun, et al., “Evaluation of a Combined Approach to the Correction of Congenital Cervical or Cervicothoracic Scoliosis,” Spine Journal 19 (2019): 803-815.
|
| [9] |
Z. Chen, Y. Qiu, Z. Zhu, et al., “Posterior-Only Hemivertebra Resection for Congenital Cervicothoracic Scoliosis: Correcting Neck Tilt and Balancing the Shoulders,” Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 43, no. 6 (2018): 394-401, https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000002325.
|
| [10] |
G. Pivazyan, C. G. Winters, D. M. Brooks, F. A. Sandhu, and B. W. Cunningham, “Biomechanical Analysis of 2 Versus 4 Rods Across the Cervicothoracic Junction in a Human Cadaveric Model,” Neurosurgery 94 (2024): 217-225.
|
| [11] |
D. G. Placantonakis, I. Laufer, J. C. Wang, J. S. Beria, P. Boland, and M. Bilsky, “Posterior Stabilization Strategies Following Resection of Cervicothoracic Junction Tumors: Review of 90 Consecutive Cases,” Journal of Neurosurgery. Spine 9 (2008): 111-119.
|
| [12] |
H. Bao, Z. Liu, Y. Zhang, et al., “Sequential Correction Technique to Avoid Postoperative Global Coronal Decompensation in Rigid Adult Spinal Deformity: A Technical Note and Preliminary Results,” European Spine Journal 28 (2019): 2179-2186.
|
| [13] |
B. Shi, D. Liu, Z. Zhu, et al., “Sequential Correction Technique in Degenerative Scoliosis With Type C Coronal Imbalance: A Comparison With Traditional 2-Rod Technique,” Journal of Neurosurgery. Spine 36 (2022): 1005-1011.
|
| [14] |
Y. Li, B. Shi, D. Liu, et al., “Sequential Correction Using Satellite Rod for Severe Thoracic Idiopathic Scoliosis: An Effective Method to Optimize Deformity Correction,” Journal of Neurosurgery. Spine 34 (2021): 857-863.
|
| [15] |
Y. Zhu, S. Mao, Y. Ma, et al., “How Does Congenital Cervicothoracic Scoliosis Bring About Early Trunk Tilt and Coronal Imbalance During Curve Progression: A Radiographic Analysis to Dissect the Mechanism of Proximal Takeoff Phenomenon,” European Spine Journal 32 (2023): 3591-3598.
|
| [16] |
S. Li, Z.-H. Chen, Y. Qiu, et al., “Coronal Decompensation After Posterior-Only Thoracolumbar Hemivertebra Resection and Short Fusion in Young Children With Congenital Scoliosis,” Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 43, no. 9 (2018): 654-660, https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000002383.
|
| [17] |
V. B. Chakravarthy, I. Hussain, I. Laufer, et al., “Cervicothoracic Junction Instrumentation Strategies Following Separation Surgery for Spinal Metastases,” Journal of Neurosurgery. Spine 38 (2023): 473-480.
|
| [18] |
J. S. Yang, J. M. Buchowski, and V. Verma, “Construct Type and Risk Factors for Pseudarthrosis at the Cervicothoracic Junction,” Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 40 (2015): E613-E7.
|
| [19] |
V. Deviren, J. K. Scheer, and C. P. Ames, “Technique of Cervicothoracic Junction Pedicle Subtraction Osteotomy for Cervical Sagittal Imbalance: Report of 11 Cases,” Journal of Neurosurgery. Spine 15 (2011): 174-181.
|
| [20] |
S.-J. Hyun, L. G. Lenke, Y.-C. Kim, L. A. Koester, and K. M. Blanke, “Comparison of Standard 2-Rod Constructs to Multiple-Rod Constructs for Fixation Across 3-Column Spinal Osteotomies,” Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 39, no. 22 (2014): 1899-1904, https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000000556.
|
| [21] |
R. L. Tatsumi, J. U. Yoo, Q. Liu, et al., “Mechanical Comparison of Posterior Instrumentation Constructs for Spinal Fixation Across the Cervicothoracic Junction,” Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 32, no. 10 (2007): 1072-1076, https://doi.org/10.1097/01.brs.0000261490.90956.2b.
|
| [22] |
K. Sun, X. Sun, Z. Zhu, et al., “A Novel Classification of Congenital Cervicothoracic Scoliosis: Identification of Coronal Subtypes and Their Prognostic Significance,” European Spine Journal 33 (2024): 4426-4436.
|
| [23] |
P. A. J. Pijpker, J. Kraeima, M. J. H. Witjes, et al., “Accuracy of Patient-Specific 3D-Printed Drill Guides for Pedicle and Lateral Mass Screw Insertion: An Analysis of 76 Cervical and Thoracic Screw Trajectories,” Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 46, no. 3 (2021): 160-168, https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000003747.
|
| [24] |
L.-P. Zhou, R.-J. Zhang, Y. Shang, et al., “Comparison of Robotic or Computer-Assisted Navigation Versus Fluoroscopic Freehand Techniques in the Accuracy of Posterior Cervical Screw Placement During Cervical Spine Surgery: A Meta-Analysis,” Journal of Neurosurgery. Spine 41 (2024): 746-756.
|
| [25] |
S. Mao, Y. Qiu, Z. Liu, et al., “Posterior-Only Approach Cervical Hemivertebrectomy and Short Fusion With Pedicle Screws in Young Children With Cervical Scoliosis: Case Report and Technical Note,” European Spine Journal 33 (2024): 3993-4001.
|
| [26] |
J. L. Jouve, E. Choufani, E. Peltier, A. Khal, and S. Pesenti, “Neuromonitoring for Spine Surgery in Children,” Orthopaedics & Traumatology, Surgery & Research 110 (2024): 103780.
|
RIGHTS & PERMISSIONS
2025 The Author(s). Orthopaedic Surgery published by Tianjin Hospital and John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd.
PDF
