Abstract :

Introduction: Preferred instrumentation for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) remains controversial. Surgical correction is classically indicated for progressive curves more than 40° in the skeletally immature patient.

Aims and objectives: The basic aim of the study is to analyse the average correction of Cobb’s angle post instrumentation in adolescent ideopathic scoliosis in lenknee type 1 curve.

Material and methods: This descriptive study was conducted in Services hospital, Lahore during 2020 to 2021. This study was done with the approval of ethical committee of hospital. There are 27 patients that were included in this study. The age range for the selected patients was 14-20 years from which 15 female and 12 male. The total duration of the study was 2 years.

Results: The data was collected from 27 patients.  In three patients with Lenke type 1 curve, the apex of curve was the disc at T8/9 or the vertebral body at T9. The mean coronal Cobb angle of the main thoracic curve was 43.7° and the Cobb angles of the compensatory curves on thoracolumbar or lumbar region were less than 20°. On scoliometer measurement of the rib hump averaged 18.5°. On the lateral bending film the mean Cobb angle of main thoracic curve was corrected to 15.7°.

Conclusion: It is concluded that patients with Lenke 1 increasing the cost density of instrumentation does not translate into improving the Cobb angle of the uninstrumented spine and does not change any of the cosmetic parameters measured on clinical patient photographs.

---

Keywords :

Balance, Cobb's, Life, Patients

---

References :

1. Hicks JM, Singla A, Shen FH, Arlet V. Complications of pedicle screw fixation in scoliosis surgery: a systematic review. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2010;35(11):E465–E470
2. Di Silvestre M, Parisini P, Lolli F, Bakaloudis G. Complications of thoracic pedicle screws in scoliosis treatment. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2007;32(15):1655–1661.
3. Asher M, Lai SM, Burton D, Manna B. Maintenance of trunk deformity correction following posterior instrumentation and arthrodesis for idiopathic scoliosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2004;29(16):1782–1788.
4. Goldberg CJ, Moore DP, Fogarty EE, Dowling FE. Adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: the effect of brace treatment on the incidence of surgery. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2001;26(1):42–47.
5. Iwahara T, Imai M, Atsuta Y. Quantification of cosmesis for patients affected by adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Eur Spine J. 1998;7(1):12–15.
6. Negrini S, Grivas TB, Kotwicki T, Maruyama T, Rigo M, Weiss HR. Why do we treat adolescent idiopathic scoliosis? What we want to obtain and to avoid for our patients. SOSORT 2005 Consensus paper. 2006;1:4.
7. Theologis TN, Jefferson RJ, Simpson AH, Turner-Smith AR, Fairbank JC. Quantifying the cosmetic defect of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1993;18(7):909–912.
8. Zaina F, Negrini S, Atanasio S. TRACE (trunk aesthetic clinical evaluation), a routine clinical tool to evaluate aesthetics in scoliosis patients: development from the aesthetic index (AI) and repeatability. 2009;4:3.
9. Donaldson S, Hedden D, Stephens D, Alman B, Howard A, Narayanan U, et al. Surgeon reliability in rating physical deformity in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2007;32(3):363–367.
10. Tredwell SJ, Bannon M. The use of the ISIS optical scanner in the management of the braced adolescent idiopathic scoliosis patient. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1988;13(10):1104–1105.
11. Sahlstrand T. The clinical value of Moire topography in the management of scoliosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1986;11(5):409–417.