English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Improving cosmesis is an important aim of the AIS surgery. Anterior and posterior instrumentations are two established methods of correcting Lenke 5C AIS. Both methods have respective advantages and disadvantages. However, there was no detailed report in the literature focusing on the comparison between the cosmetic and radiographic outcomes of these two methods. The objective of this study is to evaluate and compare the cosmetic and radiographic outcomes of anterior versus posterior instrumentation in Lenke 5C AIS.Materials and Methods   A retrospective analysis was conducted in 68 consecutive female Lenke 5C patients who had surgery between 2006 and 2010. Thirty-two patients had anterior surgery (Group A) and 36 patients had posterior surgery (Group B). Patients were evaluated at a minimum follow-up of 2 years. Cobb angles, apical vertebral translation (AVT), and apical vertebral rotation (AVR) were measured in the standard long-standing posteroanterior radiographs. Waistline height index, waistline depth index, waistline area index, waist area index, and hump index (α) were measured clinically and the five parameters combined into a composite cosmetic index (CCI). Cosmetic and radiologic outcomes of both Groups A and B were evaluated and compared.Results   The mean age, preoperative CCI, major curve magnitude, number of levels involved in the major curve, AVT, and AVR were similar for the anterior and posterior groups (age: 16.25 vs. 16.00 years; CCI: 53.76 vs. 52.65; curve size: 45.67 vs. 46.33 degrees; number of levels: P 50  = 5 vs. P 50  = 5; AVT: 17.39 vs. 18.40%; AVR: 2.13 vs. 2.24 degrees). There were significant increases noted in terms of correction of CCI before and after surgery in both groups ( p   0.05). However, significant differences were noted in Group A with regard to shorter fusion levels ( p &lt; 0.001) and improved correction of AVR ( p &lt; 0.05). There were no complications in either group which extended hospital stay or required an unplanned second surgery.Conclusion   Anterior versus posterior surgery comparison in treating Lenke 5C AIS did not show any significant differences with regard to cosmetic and lumbar/thoracolumbar curve correction, but demonstrated shorter fusion levels and improved correction of vertebral rotation in anterior instrumentation group.

global spine journal

Cosmetic and Radiological Outcome after Surgical Treatment in Lenke 5C Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis Patients: A Comparison of Anterior versus Posterior Approaches