Is fusion surgery always the end point?

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Dr. Pete Rose Spine Treatment & Brace. Spine Treatment The full story of spine deformity in SS unclear –Probably usually mild magnitude Most patients.
Advertisements

SCOLIOSIS A NURSING OVERVIEW Ann S. Goodson, R.N.,MSN,ONC Nurse Coordinator Pediatric/Orthopedics.
Fusionless Correction for Early Onset Scoliosis (EOS) Emma Orton BME 281.
Thoracogenic Spinal Deformity: A Rare Cause of Early Onset Scoliosis International Congress on Early Onset Scoliosis November 19 & 20, 2015 A. Noelle Larson,
Patients without intraoperative neuromonitoring (IONM) alerts during implantation of rib based growing constructs did not sustain neurologic injury during.
Growth Preserving Spinal Surgery for Scoliosis in Children with Osteogenesis Imperfecta Lawrence Karlin, MD, Amer Samdani, MD, Anna McClung, BSN, RN, Michael.
Comparison of deformity correction and complications with VEPTR and early primary posterior spinal fusion in young children with idiopathic scoliosis:
A minimum of 2 year follow up of 22 EOS patients who were treated with 2 nd generation MCGR Karsten Ridderbusch, Christian Hagemann, Ralf Stücker Childrens.
John T. Wilkinson m. d. , Chad E. Songy m. d. , Frances l
Incidence of Proximal junctional kyphosis with Magnetic Expansion Control Rods in early onset scoliosis P Inaparthy, JC Queruz, C Thakar, D Rolton, C Nnadi.
The Rib Construct (RC) has provided secure proximal fixation for management of patients with EOS and severe thoracic hyperkyphosis Alaa Azmi Ahmad – MD.
Final Fusion in Patients Treated with Rib Based Distraction: A Review of Peri- operative Results THE UNIVERSITY OF UTAH Department of Orthopaedic Surgery.
Burt Yaszay, MD Jeff B. Pawelek, BS John Emans, MD Patrick Cahill, MD Bo Robertson Gregory M. Mundis, MD Behrooz A. Akbarnia, MD Children’s Spine Study.
Thoracic Insufficiency Syndrome
OUTCOME OF SPINE SURGERY IN ELDORET
Xingye Li, Jianxiong Shen, M.D.
Management of Spinal and Thoracic Deformity in Patients with Myelomeningocele Using Vertical Expandable Prosthetic Titanium Rib Ajeya P. Joshi, David Limon,
Swamy Kurra Stephen Albanese Patrick Cahill Randal Betz
Pediatric orthopedic surgeon – Ramallah - Palestine
Adam Margalit, BS Paul D. Sponseller, MD Richard McCarthy, MD
ICEOS 2016 Utrecht, November 2016
Neurosurgical Updates 2016 Brain & Spine Symposium:
VEPTR Implantation for Children with congenital scoliosis under Age 3
Sumeet Garg, MD Jack Flynn, MD Nicole Michael, BA
Growth Friendly Surgery is Effective at Treating Scoliosis Associated with Goldenhar Syndrome Braydon Connell, Jonathan Oore, Joshua Pahys, George Thompson,
Early Treatment of Scoliosis in Spinal Muscular Atrophy
EOS Patients from A Retrospective database
How Often do you Lengthen
Scoliosis Idiopathic Scoliosis In Adolescents NEJM Feb 28, 2013: 368:9
John T. Smith, MD Jessica V. Morgan John A. Heflin, MD
Novel approach to multilevel congenital scoliosis in young children
Distraction-Based Surgeries Increase Spine Length for Patients with Non-Idiopathic EOS - 5 Year Follow up Yehia ElBromboly, Jennifer Hurry, Kedar Padhye,
Hospital Universitario La Paz, Madrid, Spain
E-Poster 159 VEPTR Implantation to Treat Children with Early Onset Scoliosis without Rib Abnormalities: A Prospective Multicenter Study Ron El-Hawary,
Evaluation of Pulse Oximetry in Pre- and Post Casting
Magnetically Controlled Growing Rods: Sagittal Plane Analysis and the Risk of Proximal Junctional Kyphosis Purnendu Gupta, Felix Brassard, Jennifer Schottler,
Top 3 Articles That Changed My Approach to EOS
Questions to Ponder What is Scoliosis?
Analysis of Percentile Weight Changes in Failure To Thrive Children undergoing Growing Rod Insertion. ICEOS 2012 Walsh A, Lui DF, Kelly M, O'Neill F, McDevitt.
Can Infection Associated with Rib Distraction Instrumentation be Managed without Implant Removal? A Multi-Center Study John T. Smith, MD* Patrick Cahill,
Case discussions ICEOS 2009 Istanbul Jack Flynn, MD
Outcome Measures in Early Onset Scoliosis
REALLY? WAS THIS SUPPOSED TO BE A DEBATE?
Noriaki Kawakami, Taichi Tsuji, Kazuyoshi Miyasaka, Tetsuya Ohara,
Imaging in Early Onset Scoliosis
Complications of Anchors in the Growing Rod Technique
A New Classification System to Report Complications in Growing Spine Surgery: A Multicenter Consensus Study   John T. Smith, MD, Charles Johnston,
Dual Rods and Submuscular Rod Placement Reduce Complications and Unplanned Surgeries in the Growing Spine: Analysis of 910 Surgeries in 143 Patients Shay.
DISTRACTION of (MAGEC) Rod WHY and WHEN ?
Is Vertical Expandable Prosthetic Titanium Rib (VEPTR) Application a Sufficient Method to Provide Expected Spinal Growth in Congenital Scoliosis? M. Bulent.
Greg Redding, MD Professor of Pediatrics
John A Heflin, MD John T. Smith, MD
Long-term results in surgical management of congenital scoliosis (CS): A minimum 10 years follow-up study Debnath UK Harshavardhana NS Hegarty J Grevitt.
M. Bulent Balioglu, Y. Emre Akman, Yunus Atici,
Myth vs. Truth: Screws are Always Superior to Hooks for GR Foundations
Classification of EOS Treatment
Klane K. White, MD, MSc Viviana Bompadre, PhD Adam J. Kreutzer
Sumeet Garg, MD The Children’s Hospital, Colorado
Pulmonary Outcomes after VEPTR Intervention
Nicholas D. Fletcher, MD¹ Charles E. Johnston III, MD²
VU VIET CHINH –VO QUANG ĐINH NAM – ĐO TRAN KHANH - ĐAU THE CANH
Scoliosis surgery with hybrid system in osteogenesis imperfecta (OI)
The Psychosocial Impact
The Classification for Early-Onset Scoliosis (C-EOS) Predicts Timing of VEPTR Anchor Failure Michael G. Vitale, MD MPH Associate Chief, Division of.
Amer F. Samdani, MD Tricia St. Hilaire John Emans, MD John Smith, MD
ARTHROGRYPOSIS AND VEPTR
VEPTR Treatment of Jarcho-Levin Syndrome
Simultaneous Vertebral Column Resection (VCR) and Growing Rods (GR) or Shilla for Severe Early Onset Spinal Deformity (EOS) John Emans, MD; Ashley Goldthwait,
Management of Implant Related Infections:
Presentation transcript:

Is fusion surgery always the end point? ICEOS 2009 Istanbul Jack Flynn, MD Associate Chief of Orthopaedic Surgery Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia Associate Professor of Orthopaedic Surgery University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine 1

Non-fusion as an endpoint Introduction Current Conventional Wisdom Growing treatments are for growing children Expand periodically to match (or exceed?) growth expected in intervening segments

Non-fusion as an endpoint Introduction Current Conventional Wisdom There is an “endpoint” all EOS patients reach Endpoint can be End of spine growth A complication that pushes final fusion Infection Implant/fixation failure Patient/family fatigue of multiple surgical procedures

Non-fusion as an endpoint Introduction What should be done at the endpoint (“graduation”)? Remove all growing implants and fuse all segments previously spanned Remove most growing implants and fuse (e.g. leave rib based systems) Retain growing implants across a stiff (autofused?) spine and follow periodically Remove growing implants, no fusion, follow 29° 11 y/o, 5 yrs post instrumentation

Non-fusion as an endpoint Introduction Fusion required (?) Halt late progression Protect implants and bone/implant interface Decrease risk of pain with micromotion

Non-fusion as an endpoint GR Grads Growing Rod “graduates” No large multicenter reports available Cahill, et al. SRS 2009 7 GR cases converted to final fusion GR’s placed SQ Found autofusion at multiple levels Osteotomies required Why was final fusion necessary?

Non-fusion as an endpoint Introduction What do we know about the end of GR or VEPTR treatment? Not much to inform surgeons and families as they approach skeletal maturity Philly Shrine series of 7 GR pts converted to final fusion (SRS 2009) VEPTR graduates by CWSDSG (SRS 2008, POSNA 2009)

VEPTR Graduates Introduction Analyze the original treatment cohort as they complete the expansion phase of VEPTR management Inform surgeons as they counsel their current patients about future treatment

VEPTR Graduates Materials & Methods Using databases The VEPTR FDA Feasibility Study IDE study database Captured every VEPTR patient Had a final fusion or No expansions for the past 2 yrs “VEPTR Graduates”

VEPTR Graduates Materials & Methods Patients assigned to a category “fused” (had definitive spinal fusion, with or without VEPTR removal) “VEPTR only” (no spinal fusion planned) “undetermined” (not actively expanding, may or may not have fusion in future)

VEPTR Graduates Materials & Methods Evaluated Demographic data Diagnosis Age at last expansion Last surgical procedure Plans for fusion Device-related complication

VEPTR Graduates Results 39 VEPTR grads: 12-25 y/o (mean 16.6 y/o) Status 18 “fused” 11 “VEPTR only” 10 “undetermined” VEPTR retained 10/18 “fusion” 9/11 “VEPTR-only”

VEPTR Graduates Results Congenital Scoliosis Thoracogenic Scoliosis VEPTR Graduates Results Status # Congen/ Fused ribs Progressive scoli no fused ribs Hypoplastic chest Flail chest VEPTR still in VEPTR removed PSF 18 8 7 2 1 10 VEPTR only 11 3 4 9 Undeter-mined

VEPTR Graduates Results Neuromuscular and syndromes Status # Congen/ Fused ribs Progressive scoli no fused ribs Hypoplastic chest Flail chest VEPTR still in VEPTR removed PSF 18 8 7 2 1 10 VEPTR only 11 3 4 9 Undeter-mined

VEPTR Graduates Results Jeune’s VATER Jarcho-Levin Status # Congen/ Fused ribs Progressive scoli no fused ribs Hypoplastic chest Flail chest VEPTR still in VEPTR removed PSF 18 8 7 2 1 10 VEPTR only 11 3 4 9 Undeter-mined

VEPTR Graduates Results Tumor resection, etc Status # Congen/ Fused ribs Progressive scoli no fused ribs Hypoplastic chest Flail chest VEPTR still in VEPTR removed PSF 18 8 7 2 1 10 VEPTR only 11 3 4 9 Undeter-mined

VEPTR Graduates Results 2 patients had device failure waiting for a fusion Interviewed surgeon caring for the “undetermined” patients: only 3/10 patients likely to have a future spinal fusion thus, most of the “undetermined” group probably will become “VEPTR only”

VEPTR Graduates Discussion VEPTR endpoint management varies by underlying diagnosis Congen scoli/fused ribs: mixed PSF and VEPTR only Neuromuscular and syndromes: almost all PSF Hypoplastic chest, Flail chest: usually VEPTR only The VEPTR devices are usually not removed at the end of treatment

Non-fusion as an endpoint Summary thoughts Evidence-based answer not yet available Conventional wisdom is to remove growing implants and perform final fusion as growth slows/ends Need larger series of EOS instrumented “graduates”

Non-fusion as an endpoint Summary thoughts Removal of growing implants? Is it necessary if there is an autofusion? Risk of “limited anchor” implants

Non-fusion as an endpoint Summary thoughts Perhaps final solution should be based upon underlying diagnosis: The “flexible” spine (NM and IS): final fusion The stiff spine (congenital, hypoplastic chest, auto-fused): no formal final fusion

Non-fusion as an endpoint Future Need much more data at final fusion Condition of the spine (flexibility) Extent/risks of final fusion Fusion of same segments or more (dealing with PJK, etc) Complication rate of final fusion Need natural history data from: Adults with growing implants left in Adults with growing implants removed without fusion

Thank you