Hybrid technique versus traditional dual growing rod technique to treat congenital early-onset scoliosis: a comparative study with more than 3 years of follow-up

OBJECTIVE The authors' objective was to compare the intermediate outcomes of patients with severe congenital early -onset scoliosis (CEOS) treated with posterior vertebrectomy/hemivertebrectomy with short fusion and dual growing rods (hybrid technique [HT]) and those treated with traditional dual growing rods (TDGRs).METHODS A retrospective study of patients who underwent the HT and TDGR technique for CEOS was conducted. The inclusion criteria were CEOS (age < 10 years), Risser stage 0, treatment with HT or TDGR, index surgery performed between 2004 and 2017, and minimum follow-up of 3 years. For patients who completed lengthening procedures, the last lengthening procedure was considered the latest follow-up. Demographic, radiographic, clinical, and patient-reported outcomes and revisions were compared between groups.RESULTS Sixty-one patients with CEOS were included in this study, with 16 treated with HT and 45 with TDGR tech-nique. There were no differences in age at index surgery, duration of treatment, or number of lengthening procedures. The lengthening interval was longer in the HT group. The preoperative mean +/- SD main curve was 81.8 degrees +/- 17.1 degrees for the HT group and 63.3 degrees +/- 16.9 degrees for the TDGR group (p < 0.05). However, main curve correction was better in the HT group, and no differences in residual curve were found between groups. Although the preoperative apex vertebral translation (AVT) of the HT group was greater, the correction of AVT was better in the HT group (p < 0.05). No differences in T1-S1 and T1-12 height were found between groups at the latest follow-up. The growth of T1-S1 height was less in the HT group (p < 0.05), whereas the growth of T1-12 height was similar between groups. Patients in the HT group had a lower risk of mechanical complications but higher risks of dural tears and neurological complications.CONCLUSIONS HT may provide better correction and apex control ability than TDGR for EOS patients with severe and rigid deformity at the apex level, and it significantly decreased the risk of mechanical complications with little influence on growth of the thoracic spine. HT may be an option for patients with severe CEOS with large asymmetrical growth poten-tial around the apex of the curve.