Comparison of Surgical Treatment in Lenke 5C Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis: Anterior Dual Rod Versus Posterior Pedicle Fixation Surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: Multicenter analysis of 2 groups of patients surgically treated for Lenke 5C adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS). OBJECTIVE: Compare patients with Lenke 5C scoliosis surgically treated with anterior spinal fusion with dual rod instrumentation and anterior column support with patients surgically treated with posterior release and pedicle screw instrumentation. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Treatment of single, structural, lumbar, and thoracolumbar curves in patients with AIS has been the subject of some debate. Advocates of the anterior approach assert that their technique spares posterior musculature and may save distal fusion levels, and that with dual rods and anterior column support the issues with nonunion and kyphosis have been obviated. Advocates of the posterior approach assert that with the change to posterior pedicle screw based instrumentation that correction and levels are equivalent, and the posterior approach avoids the issues with nonunion and kyphosis. This report directly compares the results of posterior versus anterior instrumented fusions in the operative treatment of adolescent idiopathic Lenke 5C curves. METHODS: We analyzed 62 patients with Lenke 5C based on radiographic and clinical data at 2 institutions: 31 patients treated with posterior, pedicle-screw instrumented fusions at 1 institution (group PSF); and 31 patients with anterior, dual-rod instrumented fusions at another institution (group ASF). Multiple clinical and radiographic parameters were evaluated and compared. RESULTS: The mean age, preoperative major curve magnitude, and preoperative lowest instrumented vertebral (LIV) tilt were similar in both groups (age: PSF = 15.5 years, ASF = 15.6 years; curve size: PSF = 50.3 degrees +/- 7.0 degrees , ASF = 49.0 degrees +/- 6.6 degrees ; LIV tilt: PSF = 27.5 degrees +/- 6.5 degrees , ASF = 27.8 degrees +/- 6.2 degrees ). After surgery, the major curve corrected to an average of 6.3 degrees +/- 3.2 degrees (87.6% +/- 5.8%) in the PSF group, compared with 12.1 degrees +/- 7.4 degrees (75.7% +/- 14.8%) in the ASF group (P < 0.01). At final follow-up, the major curve measured 8.0 degrees +/- 3.0 degrees (84.2% +/- 5.8% correction) in the PSF group, compared with 15.9 degrees +/- 9.0 degrees (66.6% +/- 17.9%) in the ASF group (P = 0.01). This represented a loss of correction of 1.7 degrees +/- 1.9 degrees (3.4% +/- 3.7%) in the PSF group, and 3.8 degrees +/- 4.2 degrees (9.4% +/- 10.7%) in the ASF group (P = 0.028). The LIV tilt decreased to 4.1 degrees +/- 3.4 degrees after surgery in the PSF group, and 4.5 degrees +/- 3.7 degrees in the ASF group. At final follow-up, the LIV tilt was 5.1 degrees +/- 3.5 degrees in the PSF group, and 4.5 degrees +/- 3.7 degrees in the ASF group. EBL was identical in both groups, and length of hospital stay was significantly (P < 0.01) shorter in the PSF group (4.8 vs. 6.1 days). There were no complications in either group which extended hospital stay or required an unplanned second surgery. CONCLUSION: At a minimum of 2-year follow-up, adolescents with Lenke 5C curves demonstrated statistically significantly better curve correction, less loss of correction over time, and shorter hospital stays when treated with a posterior release with pedicle screw instrumented fusion compared with an anterior instrumented fusion with dual rods for similar patient populations.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".