Severe Rigid Scoliosis: Review of Management Strategies and Role of Spinal Osteotomies

Severe rigid curves pose a considerable challenge to the treating spine surgeon. In our practice, approximately 30%–40% of patients with scoliosis present late with severe rigid scoliosis (>90° and <30% correction on bending films). Controversy still exists with regard to the ideal surgical strategy for correcting these rigid curves. Rigid scoliosis often presents in the form of either sharp angular or rounded deformities. Rounded deformities can be effectively managed with an anterior release to loosen the apex and posterior instrumentation (with osteotomies, if required). In contrast, severe rigid scoliosis, which is a sharp angular deformity, is not very amenable to anterior release and is best managed by posterior-only vertebral column resection and posterior instrumentation

Anterior versus posterior procedure for surgical treatment of thoracolumbar tuberculosis: A retrospective analysis

Background: Approach for surgical treatment of thoracolumbar tuberculosis has been controversial. The aim of present study is to compare the clinical, radiological and functional outcome of anterior versus posterior debridement and spinal fixation for the surgical treatment of thoracic and thoracolumbar tuberculosis. Materials and Methods: 70 patients with spinal tuberculosis treated surgically between Jan 2001 and Dec 2006 were included in the study. Thirty four patients (group I) with mean age 34.9 years underwent anterior debridement, decompression and instrumentation by anterior transthoracic, transpleural and/or retroperitoneal diaphragm cutting approach. Thirty six patients (group II) with mean age of 33.6 years were operated by posterolateral (extracavitary) decompression and posterior instrumentation. Various parameters like blood loss, surgical time, levels of instrumentation, neurological recovery, and kyphosis improvement were compared. Fusion assessment was done as per Bridwell criteria. Functional outcome was assessed using Prolo scale. Mean followup was 26 months. Results: Mean surgical time in group I was 5 h 10 min versus 4 h 50 min in group II (P>0.05). Average blood loss in group I was 900 ml compared to 1100 ml in group II (P>0.05). In group I, the percentage immediate correction in kyphosis was 52.27% versus 72.80% in group II. Satisfactory bony fusion (grades I and II) was seen in 100% patients in group I versus 97.22% in group II. Three patients in group I needed prolonged immediate postoperative ICU support compared to one in group II. Injury to lung parenchyma was seen in one patient in group I while the anterior procedure had to be abandoned in one case due to pleural adhesions. Functional outcome (Prolo scale) in group II was good in 94.4% patients compared to 88.23% patients in group I. Conclusion: Though the anterior approach is an equally good method for debridement and stabilization, kyphus correction is better with posterior instrumentation and the posterior approach is associated with less morbidity and complications