Scholarlink

Purpose <p>Vertebral body tethering (VBT) offers a fusion-less alternative for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) patients, with tether breakage being a common concern, particularly in single-row VBT. Limited data exist on double-row VBT’s impact on tether breakage. This study evaluates a two-row vertebral body tethering (2RVBT) technique, comparing cases with and without broken tethers in patients with over 2&#xa0;year follow-up.</p> Methods <p>A single-center, retrospective review (2019–2022) included AIS patients who underwent mini-open thoracoscopic-assisted 2RVBT. Inclusion criteria were idiopathic scoliosis &lt; 65° flexible curves, residual post-operative curves &lt; 30°, and ≥ 2&#xa0;year follow-up. Patients were divided into broken-tether (BT) and non-broken-tether (NBT) groups. Radiographic measures included thoracic (T) and thoracolumbar (TL) Cobb angles, coronal balance, L5 tilt, and sagittal parameters. Tether breakage was defined by &gt; 5° change in screw angulation, with or without associated loss of correction.</p> Results <p>Among 109 patients (NBT = 94, BT = 15), the overall tether breakage rate was 13.7%. The BT group had significantly larger pre-operative TL Cobb angles (53.4 ± 14.0° vs 43.7 ± 13.8°, <i>p</i> = 0.02), greater TL correction (–&#xa0;36.2 ± 9.1° vs –2&#xa0;3.7 ± 15.9°, <i>p</i> = 0.002), and higher post-operative coronal imbalance (21.2 ± 14.6&#xa0;mm vs 11.9 ± 9.4&#xa0;mm, <i>p</i> = 0.049). They also had significantly lower skeletal maturity (mean Risser stage 2.0 ± 1.1 vs 3.2 ± 1.3, <i>p</i> = 0.019; Sanders 4.0 ± 1.5 vs 5.4 ± 2.0, <i>p</i> = 0.019). Most broken tethers did not require revision, but some cases underwent re-tethering or fusion.</p> Conclusion <p>Double tether constructs may reduce the rate of tether breakage following VBT. The main risk factors for tether breakage following double tether VBT are residual post-operative coronal imbalance, larger corrections in the lumbar spine, large rigid thoracic curves, and skeletal immaturity. Furthermore, most broken tethers did not require revision, which may indicate that curves maintained appropriate correction post-breakage due to the functional lifespan of double tether constructs. Although these are preliminary findings that must be supported with further multicenter studies that include single-tether constructs, these findings should be taken into consideration when indicating patients for VBT.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Analysis of the risk factors for tether breakage after two-row vertebral body tethering (2RVBT) in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS)

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2025年7月14日

查看全文
  • Abel De Varona-Cocero,
  • Djani Robertson,
  • Fares Ani,
  • Camryn Myers,
  • Constance Maglaras,
  • Tina Raman,
  • Themistocles Protopsaltis,
  • Juan C. Rodriguez-Olaverri

摘要

Purpose

Vertebral body tethering (VBT) offers a fusion-less alternative for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) patients, with tether breakage being a common concern, particularly in single-row VBT. Limited data exist on double-row VBT’s impact on tether breakage. This study evaluates a two-row vertebral body tethering (2RVBT) technique, comparing cases with and without broken tethers in patients with over 2 year follow-up.

Methods

A single-center, retrospective review (2019–2022) included AIS patients who underwent mini-open thoracoscopic-assisted 2RVBT. Inclusion criteria were idiopathic scoliosis < 65° flexible curves, residual post-operative curves < 30°, and ≥ 2 year follow-up. Patients were divided into broken-tether (BT) and non-broken-tether (NBT) groups. Radiographic measures included thoracic (T) and thoracolumbar (TL) Cobb angles, coronal balance, L5 tilt, and sagittal parameters. Tether breakage was defined by > 5° change in screw angulation, with or without associated loss of correction.

Results

Among 109 patients (NBT = 94, BT = 15), the overall tether breakage rate was 13.7%. The BT group had significantly larger pre-operative TL Cobb angles (53.4 ± 14.0° vs 43.7 ± 13.8°, p = 0.02), greater TL correction (– 36.2 ± 9.1° vs –2 3.7 ± 15.9°, p = 0.002), and higher post-operative coronal imbalance (21.2 ± 14.6 mm vs 11.9 ± 9.4 mm, p = 0.049). They also had significantly lower skeletal maturity (mean Risser stage 2.0 ± 1.1 vs 3.2 ± 1.3, p = 0.019; Sanders 4.0 ± 1.5 vs 5.4 ± 2.0, p = 0.019). Most broken tethers did not require revision, but some cases underwent re-tethering or fusion.

Conclusion

Double tether constructs may reduce the rate of tether breakage following VBT. The main risk factors for tether breakage following double tether VBT are residual post-operative coronal imbalance, larger corrections in the lumbar spine, large rigid thoracic curves, and skeletal immaturity. Furthermore, most broken tethers did not require revision, which may indicate that curves maintained appropriate correction post-breakage due to the functional lifespan of double tether constructs. Although these are preliminary findings that must be supported with further multicenter studies that include single-tether constructs, these findings should be taken into consideration when indicating patients for VBT.