Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 27, 2025
Cone Beam Intraoperative Computed Tomography-based Image Guidance for Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Interbody Fusion
Published on: August 6, 2019
Benefits of Best Practice Guidelines in Spine Fusion: Comparable Correction in AIS with Higher Density and Fewer
Pedro Fernandes1,2, Isabel Flores3, Joaquim Soares do Brito1,2
1Centro Hospitalar Universitário Lisboa Norte, Orthopaedics Department, Avenida Professor Egas Moniz, 1649-035 Lisboa, Portugal.
Background:
There is significant variability in surgeons' instrumentation patterns for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis surgery. Implant density and costs are difficult to correlate with deformity correction, safety, and quality of life measures.
Materials And Methods:
Two groups of postoperative adolescents were compared based on exposure to a best practice guidelines program (BPGP) introduced to decrease complications. Hybrid and stainless steel constructs were dropped, and posterior-based osteotomies, screws, and implant density were increased to 66.8 ± 12.03 vs. 57.5 ± 16.7% (p < 0.001). The evaluated outcomes were: initial and final correction, rate of correction loss, complications, OR returns, and SRS-22 scores (minimum two-year follow-up).
Results:
34 patients were operated on before BPGP and 48 after. The samples were comparable, with the exceptions of a higher density and longer operative times after BPGP. Initial and final corrections before BPGP were 67.9° ± 22.9 and 64.6° ± 23.7; after BPGP, the corrections were 70.6° ± 17.4 and 66.5° ± 14.9 (sd). A regression analysis did not show a relation between the number of implants and postoperative correction (beta = -0.116, p = 0.307), final correction (beta = -0.065, p = 0.578), or loss of correction (beta= -0.137, p = 0.246). Considering screw constructs only (n = 63), a regression model controlled for flexibility continued to show a slight negative effect of density on initial correction (b = -0.274; p = 0.019). Only with major curve concavity was density relevant in initial correction (b = 0.293; p = 0.038), with significance at 95% not being achieved for final correction despite a similar beta (b = 0.263; p = 0.069). Complications and OR returns dropped from 25.6% to 4.2%. Despite this, no difference was found in SRS-22 (4.30 ± 0.432 vs. 4.42 ± 0.39; sd) or subdomain scores pre- and post-program.
Findings:
Although it appears counterintuitive that higher density, osteotomies, and operative time may lead to fewer complications, the study shows the value of best practice guidelines in spinal fusions. It also shows that a 66% implant density leads to better safety and efficacy, avoiding higher costs.
