Case Discussion: 5-Year-old with Increasing Spinal Deformity

The goal of treatment of Early Onset Scoliosis (EOS) is to achieve and maintain a reasonable correction of scoliosis and to allow the growth of the spine to continue. Normalization of the thoracic growth is believed to be a sound strategy to counteract the pulmonary morbidity seen with EOS, regardless of its etiology. This also prevents worsening of pulmonary function. Although there is no conclusive evidence to indicate that the restoration of thoracic volume leads to better pulmonary function, it seems reasonable to assume that improving thoracic volume will provide a better environment for lung function.

In the child presented, the spinal deformity involves the thoraco-lumbar and lumbar spine rather than the thoracic spine and his space available for the lungs seems to be in the normal range, although the function may be abnormal because of the primary neuromuscular disease. Therefore restoration of the thoracic space is not the primary issue in this case, although prevention of deformity progression is absolutely mandatory if this patient is to avoid functional and pulmonary morbidity later. Therefore we should discuss the best treatment option to provide us with the best results.

The goal of treatment in this patient should be to relieve him from using a brace which has caused some pressure problems, interfering with his care and has failed to control his curve. The goals are not only to make him brace free, but to allow a better balance of the spine and hopefully prevent frequent falls. With his curve being flexible enough and not having any congenital spinal anomalies, he is an excellent candidate for growing instrumentation technique. I agree that it is best to avoid approaching the spine anteriorly thereby avoiding further pulmonary compromise.

There are two basic posterior growing techniques available to treat this type of deformity; surgery on the spine and that on the rib cage. Surgical procedures for the ribs are reserved for significant pulmonary problems and thoracic insufficiency syndrome and when there are congenital spinal anomalies present.

I feel that posterior growing rod is an excellent choice for surgical treatment of this case (1, 5) where there is a normal chest wall without anomalies, and any chest wall deformity would result from it being imposed by a progressive spinal deformity. One can debate whether rib attachment devices are appropriate, or in fact can even be harmful, in the setting of a normal chest wall where non-rib attachment devices can prevent the superimposed deformity.

It should be emphasized that no matter what type of treatment is used, managing children with EOS is challenging. Underlying problems such as myopathy in this case, multiple surgeries, and length of treatment period all contribute to possible complications. (2) Dual growing rod technique was used in this case and instrumentation spanned from the upper thoracic to lower lumbar spine, which is necessary in most cases of neuromuscular etiology to provide adequate correction and balance. This also reduces the possibility of adding more levels to the curve and the need for further extension of the spinal fusion.

Post-operative radiographs show good correction in both coronal and sagittal alignment. It is important to achieve the most stable anchors. The anchors are well placed and additional support is provided by sublaminar wires at the upper thoracic spine. The anchors may be hooks, screws, or a combination. A transverse connector can increase the foundation strength if only one set of hook claws is utilized. (3) The connection between two rods can be end-to-end versus side-to-side. If the end-to-end connector is used, the location of the connectors is usually at the thoraco-lumbar junction to have minimal affect on the sagittal alignment. The side-to-side connector used in this case allows more contouring of the rods and conforming to the sagittal alignment and kyphosis.

The frequency of lengthening is also important for achieving maximal correction and length. We are now recommending routine lengthening every 6 months. (4) The patient has had several lengthening and the initial correction and further growth over the treatment period is very close to the normal growth of the spine. Also the length of the thoracic spine is within normal range. So the question is raised regarding when one should stop the lengthening and do the final fusion. Timing of the final procedure varies in each case. The difficulty seems to be the fact that prediction of the growth rate may be difficult when there is an underlying disease. In a normal situation, one expects some crankshaft and rotational deformity to develop if the final fusion is performed at the age of 9+6. To avoid anterior fusion, our approach is to continue lengthening, maybe less frequently, until the patient has stopped growing. One may leave the instrumentation until it fails and then, either remove without fusion, or do the final fusion.

References
1. Akbarnia, B., et al., Dual growing rod technique for the treatment of progressive early-onset scoliosis: a multicenter study. Spine, 2005. 30(17 Suppl): p. S46-57.

2. Akbarnia, B., et al. Complications of Dual Growing Rod Technique in Early Onset Scoliosis: Can We Identify Risk Factors? in 41st Annual Meeting of Scoliosis Research Society. 2006. Monterey, California, USA.

3. Bagheri, R., et al. Biomechanical Comparisons of Different Anchors (Foundations) Used in the Growing Dual Rod Technique. in IMAST 11th Annual Meeting. 2004. Southhampton, Bermuda.

4. Akbarnia, B., et al. End results of dual growing rod technique followed until final fusion. The effect of frequency of lengthening. Spine (Accepted for publication ) April 2008.

5. Thompson, G., et al., Comparison of single and dual growing rod techniques followed through definitive surgery: a preliminary study [In Process Citation]. Spine, 2005. 30(18): p. 2039-44.