Abstract
Background: To assess the correction of curves using the Fulcrum bending correction index FBCI with pedicular screws in posterior scoliosis surgery.
Methods: Compare preoperative upright and fulcrum bending views, intraoperative traction films with postoperative views to assess the correction of scoliosis deformity using posterior USS II interpedicular screws. Peri-operative complications are reviewed. Twenty patients undergoing corrective surgery for scoliosis deformity were reviewed the average age was 19 years old 4 males and 16 females, 17 were idiopathic adolescent scoliosis, 3 were neuromuscular scoliosis. The Lenke classification was used to classify the curves, the Fulcrum bending correction index (FBCI) as a percentage for assessing postoperative correction.
Results: The mean preoperative major structural Cobb angle was 80 degrees and mean minor structural Cobb angle was 27 degrees, the mean major structural Cobb angle on fulcrum bending views was 49 degrees, the mean major structural Cobb angle on the traction views was 37 degrees. Pedicular screws were used in all the patients for posterior correction; only two patients required combined anterior release. The average inter-operative blood loss was 2200 ml, the initial results suggest an of FBCI of 181% compared to Luk et al results 100.2% to 109.1% 4 different methods of posterior stabilisation.
Conclusion: Pedicular screws provided excellent segmental correction and stabilisation for posterior scoliosis correction.
The abstracts were prepared by Mr Colin E. Bruce. Correspondence should be addressed to Colin E. Bruce, Consultant Orthopaedic Surgeon, Alder Hey Children’s Hospital, Eaton Road, Liverpool, L12 2AP.
References:
1 KDK Luk et al. Assessment of scoliosis correction in relation to flexibility using the fulcrum bending correction index. Spine23(21): 2303–7, 1998. Google Scholar
2 KD Luk et al. A prospective comparison of the coronal deformity correction in thoracic scoliosis using four different instrumentation and fulcrum-bending radiograph. Spine29(5): 560–3, 2004. Google Scholar
