Rib hump deformity assessment using the rib index in adolescent idiopathic scoliotics treated with full screw or hybrid constructs: aetiological implications

Review of literature reveals that in Idiopathic Scoliosis (IS) children, the post-operative rib hump (RH) correction using full transpedicular screw construct has never been compared to hybrid constructs, applying the Rib-Index (RI) method. Therefore the aim of this report is to study which of the a...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Scoliosis 2015-02, Vol.10 (Suppl 2), p.S10-S10, Article S10
Hauptverfasser: Soultanis, Konstantinos C, Stavropoulos, Nikolaos A, Grivas, Theodoros B, Tsiavos, Konstantinos, Starantzis, Konstantinos, Papagelopoulos, Panayiotis J
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Review of literature reveals that in Idiopathic Scoliosis (IS) children, the post-operative rib hump (RH) correction using full transpedicular screw construct has never been compared to hybrid constructs, applying the Rib-Index (RI) method. Therefore the aim of this report is to study which of the above two constructs offers better postoperative Rib Hump Deformity (RHD) correction. Twenty five patients with Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis (AIS) were operated using full pedicle screw construct or hybrid construct. Sixteen underwent full screw instrumentation (group A) and nine an hybrid one (group B). The median age for group A was 15 years and for group B 17.2 years. The RHD was assessed on the lateral spinal radiographs using the RI. The RI was calculated by the ratio of spine distances d1/d2, where d1 is the distance between the most extended point of the most extending rib contour and the posterior margin of the corresponding vertebra on the lateral scoliosis films and d2 is the distance from the least projected rib contour and the posterior margin of the same vertebra. Moreover the amount of RI correction was calculated by subtracting the post-operative RI from the pre-operative RI. Although within group A the RI correction was statistical significant (the pre-op RI was 1.93 and the post-op 1.37; p
ISSN:1748-7161
1748-7161
DOI:10.1186/1748-7161-10-S2-S10