Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Complications of Anchors in the Growing Rod Technique

Published byClaribel Merritt Modified over 5 years ago

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Complications of Anchors in the Growing Rod Technique"— Presentation transcript:

1 Complications of Anchors in the Growing Rod Technique
Behrooz A. Akbarnia, MD Clinical Professor, University of California, San Diego Medical Director, San Diego Center for Spinal Disorders La Jolla, California 3rd International Congress on Early Onset Scoliosis and Growing Spine (ICEOS) November 20-21, 2009 Istanbul, Turkey

2 Disclosures Author Relationships Disclosed
Behrooz A. Akbarnia DePuy Spine ( a, b, e), K2M (a, b, e) Ellipse (b), Medtronic (a) (a) Grants/Research Support (b) Consultant (c) Stock/Shareholder (d) Speakers’ Bureau (e) Other Financial Support

3 Classification of Growth Friendly Techniques
< age 8 ? All etiologies Distraction based Growing Rods VEPTR Remote Lengthening ( Phenix, Ellipse) Guided Growth Luque-Trolley Shilla Compression Based Tether Staple < age 9 ? All etiologies < age 9 ? All etiologies >age 8 Non-congenital

4 Complications for Distraction Based Implants
Inherent challenges No bony fusion Construct is weight bearing and subject to motion for the lifetime of its use

5 Rib fracture at index procedure 18mo vertebral anomalies, rib fusions, VACTERL – acute loss of correction – eventual control with growing rods J. Emans, M.D.

6 Specific Implant Related Complications for Growing Rods
Skin-related complications: Superficial wound infection Deep wound infection  Implant-related complications: Implant prominence Rod fracture Screw pull out Hook dislodgement Used with permission from Children's Hospital Los Angeles, Inc Used with permission from Children's Hospital Los Angeles, Inc

7 Complications in 910 Growing Rod Surgeries: Use of Dual Rods and Submuscular Placement of Rods Decreases Complications Bess, Akbarnia, Thompson et al and Growing Spine Study Group SRS 2008 and Submitted to JBJS

8 Demographics & Treatment Groups
143 patients ( ) Avg. age =73.2 mo. ( mo.) 910 GR surgeries 13.3 levels (7-18) 6.4 procedures/ pt (2-15) 4.5 lengthening/ pt (0-13) Final fusion=53 pts (37%) Follow up=59.4 mo. ( mo.)

9 Demographics & Treatment Groups
Construct type (NS) SI; n=73 DU; n=70 Subgroups (*=p<0.05) SI SQ; n=17* SI MU; n=55 DU SQ; n=35 DU MU; n=35

10 Results Kaplan-Meier Survival Analysis
Total complications vs. Procedures 50% survivorship at 7 surgeries Wound Complications vs. Procedures 90% survivorship at 7 surgeries 40% survivorship at 13 surgeries Odds Ratio: Complication vs. Procedure 24% increased complication risk each additional procedure (Odds Ratio=1.24, 95% Confidence Interval: 1.07, 1.44, p=0.005) Odds Ratio: Complication vs. Age 13% decrease complication risk each year increased age initial surgery (Odds Ratio=0.87, 95% Confidence Interval: 0.75, 1.00, p=0.057).

11 Conclusions Complication rates per growing rod procedure are comparable to other surgical treatments for scoliosis. Complications are likely due to multiple spine procedures per patient.

12 Conclusions Dual rod constructs reduce the number unplanned surgeries caused by implant-related complications. Sub-M placement decreases complication rates and wound problems, and reduces the number of unplanned surgeries.

13 Growing Rod Implant Complications
Anchors True complication (acute) Growth related

14 Growing Rods Hook Dislocation

15 Hooks Affected by Growth
Courtesy of H. El Sabaie, MD

16 Screws Affected by Growth
Courtesy of H. El Sebai, MD

17 Courtesy of H. El Sabai, MD

18 Oct 09 upper thoracic pain and prominance

19

20 Screw Displacement Charlie Jhonston, MD 9/06 9/08 9/08 9/08
3/09 Bil anchors replaced Charlie Jhonston, MD

21 Poor Technique Too Short No Cross link

22 At the age of 4 y.o Upper foundation T5-6 (Transverse process hooks) Lower foundation L1-2

23

24 Mahar A, Bagheri R, Oka R, Kostial P,
Biomechanical Comparison of Different Anchors and Foundations in the Dual Growing Rod Technique* Mahar A, Bagheri R, Oka R, Kostial P, Akbarnia BA 1 San Diego Center for Spinal Disorders, La Jolla, CA 2 Orthopaedic Biomechanics Research Center, Children’s Hospital, San Diego, CA 3 Department of Orthopaedics, University of California, San Diego . Spine Journal 2008

25 RESULTS No structural failures of the implants
All failures were related to bone-implant interface Animal Study

26 RESULTS Effect of level on failure biomechanics across groups
Upper = T3-T10 Lower = T11-L6

27 Mahar et al Biomechanics study hook-hook with cross-link
hook-screw with cross-link screw-screw with or without cross-link A foundation composed of four pedicle screws implanted in two adjacent vertebral bodies provides the strongest construct in pullout testing

28 Mahar et al A cross-link does not seem to enhance fixation in 4-screw construct Hook constructs are stronger in lumbar versus thoracic laminae No statistically significant difference between the hook-screw and hook-hook constructs

29 Classical vs. Non-Classical Foundations in Growing Rod Surgery
Behrooz A. Akbarnia, Pooria Salari

30 Study Questions What anchors to use ? What is the best configuration
for upper and lower constructs? What are the complication rates?

31 Pilot Study Retrospective review of 16 patients, 2 yrs FU, Dual GR
Type of anchors, configuration of anchors (foundations) and revision surgeries were recorded Group A (Classic foundations) minimum criteria: i) combination of at least 4 hooks (only supra-laminar hooks at upper vertebra) in 2 or 3 levels and one cross connector or ii) at least 4 screws in 2 or 3 adjacent levels Group B (Non-Classic foundations) All other foundations were defined as non-classic

32 Results Mean age at initial surgery 74 months (19-173)
At initial surgery 104 hooks, 20 screws and 4 wires inserted There were 20 foundations in group A and 12 in group B. Anchors were in place for average of 47.3 months

33 Results Five foundations (three in group A) were revised due to three hook pull-outs, 1 screw loosening and 1 implant prominence, with only one upper foundation failure. 31% of patients had complications requiring revision of anchors.

34 Results Complication rate in hooks and screws was 5% (6/119) and 4.65% (2/43), respectively. Mean time from initial surgery to complication was 45 months for hooks and 41.5 months for screws. Three out of six hook failures and both screw complications occurred in lower foundations. At time of final follow up, seven of the 16 patients had undergone final fusion.

35 An improved study involving a larger sample of patients is required
Conclusions There is no significant difference in complication rates between screws and hooks in this series Assortment of anchors in foundations does not seem to be a principal factor Complications appear to be more common in lower foundations. An improved study involving a larger sample of patients is required

36 Case Example #1 (Marfan’s)
3+11 years 12 lengthening- > 5 inches 12+7 years 36

37 David Skaggs

38 Serial Rod Bending with Lengthening

39 2 yrs post op

40 C.C. 9+7 yrs Boy Multiple congenital anomalies
Tracheomalacia(s/p tracheostomy, g-tube) Normal neuro/development milestones History of multiple pneumonia’s Initially presented 3/01 at age of 2.5 yrs 20° curve progressed to 68° Failed non operative treatment x one year 40 40

41 Progression 134 128 103 33 86° 2+6

42 CC 2+6 M.

43 13 months FU

44

45 38 57 months after initial surgery CC Age 7+3 Cobb: Pre 86° FU 38°
T1-S1: Pre 211mm Post 247mm FU 301mm Total cm Length. 9 38

46 April 2008 Exploration of fusion Removal Implants New Implants Revision T3-T5

47 9.3.2008- 7 years post op T9-L3 40 deg T2-T9 45 deg Kyphosis
T12-S1 42 deg Growth T1-S1 Pre: 211 cm Post: 247 cm FU: 338 cm Total lengh: 12.7 cm Expected growth: 9 cm # lengthening: 13

48 The bumpy road to success
9 years and 7 months 20 surgeries in last 7 years 13 lengthenings 6 revision surgeries (instrumentation) 5 Irrigation and Debridements 3 wound dehiscences requiring OR intervention 2 Deep infections requiring PICC line and 6 weeks of abx

49 Is it worth it? Yes if: Understand risk and benefits
Consider alternatives Do it right the first time Family support Able to manage the complications

50

51 No Trach. Normal activity
Now… No Trach. Normal activity

52 How to Avoid Complications
Patient selection Appropriate surgical planning ( levels, techniques of exposure and instrumentation and strong foundations Best chance is the time of initial surgery Achieve flexibility before instrumentation Early detection of potential complications Treatment of complication (long term goal)

53 Thank you

Download ppt "Complications of Anchors in the Growing Rod Technique"

Similar presentations

A Comparison of Patients Treated with Shilla Growing Rods for Early Onset Scoliosis 9 th International Congress on Early Onset Scoliosis November 19-20,

A Comparison of Patients Treated with Shilla Growing Rods for Early Onset Scoliosis 9 th International Congress on Early Onset Scoliosis November 19-20,
Growth Preserving Spinal Surgery for Scoliosis in Children with Osteogenesis Imperfecta Lawrence Karlin, MD, Amer Samdani, MD, Anna McClung, BSN, RN, Michael.

Growth Preserving Spinal Surgery for Scoliosis in Children with Osteogenesis Imperfecta Lawrence Karlin, MD, Amer Samdani, MD, Anna McClung, BSN, RN, Michael.
In the first 5 years of Treatment, the Charges for Guided Growth Constructs are 30% less than Growing Rods Lindsay M. Andras MD 1, Liam Harris BS 1, Scott.

In the first 5 years of Treatment, the Charges for Guided Growth Constructs are 30% less than Growing Rods Lindsay M. Andras MD 1, Liam Harris BS 1, Scott.
Comparison of deformity correction and complications with VEPTR and early primary posterior spinal fusion in young children with idiopathic scoliosis:

Comparison of deformity correction and complications with VEPTR and early primary posterior spinal fusion in young children with idiopathic scoliosis:
A minimum of 2 year follow up of 22 EOS patients who were treated with 2 nd generation MCGR Karsten Ridderbusch, Christian Hagemann, Ralf Stücker Childrens.

A minimum of 2 year follow up of 22 EOS patients who were treated with 2 nd generation MCGR Karsten Ridderbusch, Christian Hagemann, Ralf Stücker Childrens.
John T. Wilkinson m. d. , Chad E. Songy m. d. , Frances l

John T. Wilkinson m. d. , Chad E. Songy m. d. , Frances l
Authors: Pooria Hosseini MD, Jeff Pawelek BS, Gregory Mundis MD, Burt Yazsay MD, John Ferguson MD, Ilkka Helenius MD, Kenneth Cheung MD, Gokhan Demirkiran.

Authors: Pooria Hosseini MD, Jeff Pawelek BS, Gregory Mundis MD, Burt Yazsay MD, John Ferguson MD, Ilkka Helenius MD, Kenneth Cheung MD, Gokhan Demirkiran.
Incidence of Proximal junctional kyphosis with Magnetic Expansion Control Rods in early onset scoliosis P Inaparthy, JC Queruz, C Thakar, D Rolton, C Nnadi.

Incidence of Proximal junctional kyphosis with Magnetic Expansion Control Rods in early onset scoliosis P Inaparthy, JC Queruz, C Thakar, D Rolton, C Nnadi.
The Rib Construct (RC) has provided secure proximal fixation for management of patients with EOS and severe thoracic hyperkyphosis Alaa Azmi Ahmad – MD.

The Rib Construct (RC) has provided secure proximal fixation for management of patients with EOS and severe thoracic hyperkyphosis Alaa Azmi Ahmad – MD.
Final Fusion in Patients Treated with Rib Based Distraction: A Review of Peri- operative Results THE UNIVERSITY OF UTAH Department of Orthopaedic Surgery.

Final Fusion in Patients Treated with Rib Based Distraction: A Review of Peri- operative Results THE UNIVERSITY OF UTAH Department of Orthopaedic Surgery.
Burt Yaszay, MD Jeff B. Pawelek, BS John Emans, MD Patrick Cahill, MD Bo Robertson Gregory M. Mundis, MD Behrooz A. Akbarnia, MD Children’s Spine Study.

Burt Yaszay, MD Jeff B. Pawelek, BS John Emans, MD Patrick Cahill, MD Bo Robertson Gregory M. Mundis, MD Behrooz A. Akbarnia, MD Children’s Spine Study.
Authors: Pooria Hosseini MD MSc, Jeff Pawelek BS, Stacie Nguyen MPH, George H. Thompson MD, Suken A. Shah MD, John M. Flynn MD, John P. Dormans MD, Behrooz.

Authors: Pooria Hosseini MD MSc, Jeff Pawelek BS, Stacie Nguyen MPH, George H. Thompson MD, Suken A. Shah MD, John M. Flynn MD, John P. Dormans MD, Behrooz.
Complications of Growing Rods - has the Magec Rod overcome all of it ?

Complications of Growing Rods - has the Magec Rod overcome all of it ?
Xingye Li, Jianxiong Shen, M.D.

Xingye Li, Jianxiong Shen, M.D.
Olson EM, Sturm PF, Jain VV, Schultz LR, Glos DL, Bylski-Austrow DI

Olson EM, Sturm PF, Jain VV, Schultz LR, Glos DL, Bylski-Austrow DI
ICEOS 2016 Pelvic obliquity correction in distraction based growing spine constructs Mathew Schur BA1, Lindsay M Andras MD1, Nicholas R Gonsalves MD1,

ICEOS 2016 Pelvic obliquity correction in distraction based growing spine constructs Mathew Schur BA1, Lindsay M Andras MD1, Nicholas R Gonsalves MD1,
Pediatric orthopedic surgeon – Ramallah - Palestine

Pediatric orthopedic surgeon – Ramallah - Palestine
Adam Margalit, BS Paul D. Sponseller, MD Richard McCarthy, MD

Adam Margalit, BS Paul D. Sponseller, MD Richard McCarthy, MD
ICEOS 2016 Utrecht, November 2016

ICEOS 2016 Utrecht, November 2016
ICEOS 2016 Comparison of Weight Percentile Gain with Growth-Friendly Constructs in Early Onset Scoliosis Liam Harris BS1, Lindsay M Andras MD1, Paul D.

ICEOS 2016 Comparison of Weight Percentile Gain with Growth-Friendly Constructs in Early Onset Scoliosis Liam Harris BS1, Lindsay M Andras MD1, Paul D.

Similar presentations

Ads by Google