Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Is there an optimal upper instrumented vertebra (UIV) tilt angle to prevent post-operative shoulder imbalance and neck tilt in Lenke 1 and 2 adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) patients?

  • Original Article
  • Published:
European Spine Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

To investigate whether an optimal upper instrumented vertebra (UIV) tilt angle would prevent ‘lateral’ shoulder imbalance or neck tilt (with ‘medial’ shoulder imbalance) post-operatively.

Methods

The mean follow-up for 60 AIS (Lenke 1 and Lenke 2) patients was 49.3 ± 8.4 months. Optimal UIV tilt angle was calculated from the cervical supine side bending radiographs. Lateral shoulder imbalance was graded using the clinical shoulder grading. The clinical neck tilt grading was as follows: Grade 0: no neck tilt, Grade 1: actively correctable neck tilt, Grade 2: neck tilt that cannot be corrected by active contraction and Grade 3: severe neck tilt with trapezial asymmetry >1 cm. T1 tilt, clavicle angle and cervical axis were measured. UIVDiff (difference between post-operative UIV tilt and pre-operative Optimal UIV tilt) and the reserve motion of the UIV were correlated with the outcome measures. Patients were assessed at 6 weeks and at final follow-up with a minimum follow-up duration of 24 months.

Results

Among patients with grade 0 neck tilt, 88.2 % of patients had the UIV tilt angle within the reserve motion range. This percentage dropped to 75.0 % in patients with grade 1 neck tilt whereas in patients with grade 2 and grade 3 neck tilt, the percentage dropped further to 22.2 and 20.0 % (p = 0.000). The occurrence of grade 2 and 3 neck tilt when UIVDiff was <5°, 5–10° and >10° was 9.5, 50.0 and 100.0 %, respectively (p = 0.005). UIVDiff and T1 tilt had a positive and strong correlation (r 2 = 0.618). However, UIVDiff had poor correlation with clavicle angle and the lateral shoulder imbalance.

Conclusion

An optimal UIV tilt might prevent neck tilt with ‘medial’ shoulder imbalance due to trapezial prominence and but not ‘lateral’ shoulder imbalance.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Barr SJ, Schuette AM, Emans JB (1997) Lumbar pedicle screws versus hooks: results in double major curves in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Spine 22:1369–1379

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Hamill CL, Lenke LG, Bridwell KH et al (1996) The use of pedicle screw fixation to improve correction in the lumbar spine of patients with idiopathic scoliosis: is it warranted? Spine 21:1241–1249

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Kuklo TR, Benjamin K, Polly DW et al (2005) Monaxial versus multiaxial thoracic pedicle screws in the correction of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Spine 30:2113–2120

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Suk S, Kim WJ, Lee SM et al (2001) Thoracic pedicle screw fixation in spinal deformities: are they really safe? Spine 26:2047–2059

    Google Scholar 

  5. Suk S, Lee S, Chung E et al (2003) Determination of distal fusion level with segmental pedicle screw fixation in single thoracic idiopathic scoliosis. Spine 28:484–491

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Dobbs MB, Lenke LG, Kim YJ et al (2006) Anterior/posterior spinal instrumentation versus posterior instrumentation alone for the treatment of adolescent idiopathic scoliotic curves more than 90°. Spine 31:2386–2391

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Hong JY, Suh SW, Modi HN et al (2013) Analysis of factors that affect shoulder balance after correction surgery in scoliosis: a global analysis of all the curvature types. Eur Spine J 22:1273–1285

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Winter RB (1989) The idiopathic double thoracic curve pattern. Its recognition and surgical management. Spine 14:1287–1292

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Matsumoto M, Watanabe K, Kawakami N et al (2014) Postoperative shoulder imbalance in Lenke Type 1A adolescent idiopathic scoliosis and related factors. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 15:366

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Chang DG, Kim JH, Kim SS et al (2014) How to improve shoulder balance in the surgical correction of double thoracic adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 39:E1359–E1367

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Smyrnis PN, Sekouris N, Papadopulos G (2009) Surgical assessment of the proximal thoracic curve in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Eur Spine J 18:522–530

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Lee CK, Denis F, Winter RB et al (1983) Analysis of the upper thoracic curve in surgically treated idiopathic scoliosis. A new concept of the new double thoracic curve pattern. Spine 18:1599–1608

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Thompson JP, Transfeldt EE, Bradford DS et al (1990) Decompensation after cotrel-dubousset instrumentation of idiopathic scoliosis. Spine 15:927–931

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Ono T, Bastrom TP, Newton PO (2012) Defining 2 components of shoulder imbalance: clavicle tilt and trapezial prominence. Spine 37:E1511–E1516

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Kwan MK, Wong KA, Lee CK et al (2015) Is neck tilt and shoulder imbalance the same phenomenon? A prospective analysis of 89 adolescent idiopathic scoliosis patients (Lenke type 1 and 2). Eur Spine J. doi:10.1007/s00586-015-4016-9

    Google Scholar 

  16. Rose PS, Lenke LG (2007) Classification and operative adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: treatment guidelines. Orthop Clin North Am 38:521–529

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Suk SI, Kim WJ, Lee CS et al (2000) Indications of proximal thoracic curve fusion in thoracic adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: recognition and treatment of double thoracic curve pattern in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis treated with segmental instrumentation. Spine 25:2342–2349

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Ilharreborde B, Even J, Lefevre Y et al (2008) How to determine the upper level of instrumentation in Lenke types 1 and 2 adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: a prospective study of 132 patients. J Pediatr Orthop 28:733–739

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Luk KD, Don AS, Chong CS et al (2008) Selection of fusion levels in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis using fulcrum bending prediction: a prospective study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 33:2192–2198

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Matsumoto M, Watanabe K, Ogura Y et al (2011) Short fusion strategy for Lenke type 1 thoracic curve using pedicle screw fixation. J Spinal Disord Tech 26:93–97

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Phan P, Ouellet J, Mezghani N et al (2015) A rule-based algorithm can output valid strategies in the treatment of AIS. Eur Spine J 24:1370–1381

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Elsebaie HB, Dannawi Z, Altaf F et al (2016) Clinically orientated classification incorporating shoulder balance for the surgical treatment of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Eur Spine J. doi:10.1007/s00586-015-4090-z

    Google Scholar 

  23. Kuklo TR, Lenke LG, Won D et al (2001) Spontaneous proximal thoracic curve correction following fusion of the main thoracic curve in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Spine 26:1966–1975

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Ponseti IV, Friedman B (1950) Prognosis in idiopathic scoliosis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 32:381–395

    Google Scholar 

  25. King HA, Moe JH, Bradford DS et al (1983) The selection of fusion levels in thoracic idiopathic scoliosis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 65:1302–1313

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Lenke LG, Betz RR, Harms J et al (2001) Adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: a new classification to determine extent of spinal arthrodesis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 83:1169–1181

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Maurice B, Jean-Marie G, Jean-Michel T (2011) Taking the shoulders and pelvis into account in the pre-operative classification of idiopathic scoliosis in adolescents and young adults (a constructive critique of King’s and Lenke’s systems of classification). Eur Spine J 20:1780–1787

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Arlet V, Marchesi D, Papin P et al (2000) Decompensation following scoliosis surgery: treatment by decreasing the correction of the main thoracic curve or “letting the spine go”. Eur Spine J 9:156–160

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Kim YJ, Lenke LG, Cho SK et al (2004) Comparative analysis of pedicle screw versus hook instrumentation in posterior spinal fusion of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Spine 29:2040–2048

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Dobbs MB, Lenke LG, Kim YJ et al (2006) Selective posterior thoracic fusions for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: comparison of hooks versus pedicle screws. Spine 31:2400–2404

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Kim YJ, Lenke LG, Kim J et al (2006) Comparative analysis of pedicle screw versus hybrid instrumentation in posterior spinal fusion of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Spine 31:291–298

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Lenke LG, Bridwell KH, O’Brien MF et al (1994) Recognition and treatment of the proximal thoracic curve in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis treated with Cotrel-Dubousset instrumentation. Spine 19:1589–1597

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Sudo H, Abe Y, Abumi K et al (2015) Surgical treatment of double thoracic adolescent idiopathic scoliosis with a rigid proximal thoracic curve. Eur Spine J. doi:10.1007/s00586-015-4139-z

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Erken HY, Burc H, Saka G et al (2014) Disagreements in surgical planning still exist between spinal surgeons in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: a multisurgeon assessment. Eur Spine J 23:1258–1262

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Elfiky TA, Samartzis D, Cheung WY et al (2011) The proximal thoracic curve in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: surgical strategy and management outcomes. Global Spine J 1:27–36

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Qiu XS, Ma WW, Li WG et al (2009) Discrepancy between radiographic shoulder balance and cosmetic shoulder balance in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis patients with double thoracic curve. Eur Spine J 18:45–51

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Kuklo TR, Lenke LG, Graham EJ et al (2002) Correlation of radiographic, clinical, and patient assessment of shoulder balance following fusion versus nonfusion of the proximal thoracic curve in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Spine 27:2013–2020

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Bago J, Carrera L, March B et al (1996) Four radiographic measures to estimate shoulder balance in scoliosis. J Pediatr Orthop B 5:31–34

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Akel I, Pekmezci M, Hayran M et al (2008) Evaluation of shoulder balance in the normal adolescent population and its correlation with radiological parameters. Eur Spine J 17:348–354

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Yang S, Feuchtbaum E, Werner BC et al (2012) Does anterior shoulder balance in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis correlate with posterior shoulder balance clinically and radiographically? Eur Spine J 21:1978–1983

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, University of Malaya, Lembah Pantai, 50603, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

    M. K. Kwan & C. Y. W. Chan

Authors
  1. M. K. Kwan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. C. Y. W. Chan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to C. Y. W. Chan.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kwan, M.K., Chan, C.Y.W. Is there an optimal upper instrumented vertebra (UIV) tilt angle to prevent post-operative shoulder imbalance and neck tilt in Lenke 1 and 2 adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) patients?. Eur Spine J 25, 3065–3074 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-016-4529-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-016-4529-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation