<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!DOCTYPE article  PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD Journal Publishing DTD v3.0 20080202//EN" "http://dtd.nlm.nih.gov/publishing/3.0/journalpublishing3.dtd"><article xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" dtd-version="3.0" xml:lang="en" article-type="research article"><front><journal-meta><journal-id journal-id-type="publisher-id">OJRad</journal-id><journal-title-group><journal-title>Open Journal of Radiology</journal-title></journal-title-group><issn pub-type="epub">2164-3024</issn><publisher><publisher-name>Scientific Research Publishing</publisher-name></publisher></journal-meta><article-meta><article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.4236/ojrad.2018.81001</article-id><article-id pub-id-type="publisher-id">OJRad-82269</article-id><article-categories><subj-group subj-group-type="heading"><subject>Articles</subject></subj-group><subj-group subj-group-type="Discipline-v2"><subject>Physics&amp;Mathematics</subject></subj-group></article-categories><title-group><article-title>
 
 
  Radiological Evaluation of Spinal Instrumentation as Treatment for Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis, a Single Saudi Center 5-Year Experience
 
</article-title></title-group><contrib-group><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Amir</surname><given-names>Monir Ali</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"><sub>1</sub></xref><xref ref-type="corresp" rid="cor1"><sup>*</sup></xref></contrib></contrib-group><aff id="aff1"><label>1</label><addr-line>Department of Radiodiagnosis, Faculty of Medicine, Mansoura University, Mansoura, Egypt</addr-line></aff><author-notes><corresp id="cor1">* E-mail:<email>amirmonirali@gmail.com</email></corresp></author-notes><pub-date pub-type="epub"><day>01</day><month>02</month><year>2018</year></pub-date><volume>08</volume><issue>01</issue><fpage>1</fpage><lpage>12</lpage><history><date date-type="received"><day>31,</day>	<month>December</month>	<year>2017</year></date><date date-type="rev-recd"><day>28,</day>	<month>January</month>	<year>2018</year>	</date><date date-type="accepted"><day>2,</day>	<month>February</month>	<year>2018</year></date></history><permissions><copyright-statement>&#169; Copyright  2014 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc. </copyright-statement><copyright-year>2014</copyright-year><license><license-p>This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution International License (CC BY). http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/</license-p></license></permissions><abstract><p>
 
 
  Aim of the Study: The aim of this work is to radiologically evaluate the postoperative outcomes of spinal instrumentation performed as a treatment for Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis (AIS) on 5-year follow up basis, and to correlate with different clinical scenarios. 
  Materials and Methods: One hundred (100) AIS consecutive patients treated with spinal instrumentation were included in this study. The study period was from 2012 to 2017. All patients had radiological evaluations including total spine x-rays, low dose CT scan using Orthopedic Metal Artifact Reduction (OMAR) software and MRI, after obtaining the informed consents and approval of the institution ethical board. Radiological evaluation included Cobb angle measurement assessed pre, postoperatively and at regular intervals within the 5-year period. 
  Results: Of the 100 patients included, 24 were females and 76 were males. The average age at operation was 16.5 years. Sixty seven (67%) patients showed good correction and maintenance of the spinal curves where the mean Cobb angle was 68
  &amp;deg; preoperatively and 21
  &amp;deg; postoperatively, representing a correction rate of 74%. Thirty three (33%) patients showed complications including postoperative infection (13), surgical revision (4), pseudarthrosis (3), neurological deficits (5), screw loosening (7) and complete hardware failure (1); in whom the preoperative mean Cobb angle was 56
  &amp;deg; compared to the patients with no complications (
  <em>p</em> = 0.288). In males, there were postoperative complications in 27 out of 76 and in females 5 out of 24, (p = 0.027). The average duration of follow-up was 3.7 years for all cases. 
  Conclusion: Five-year follow up of patients with AIS treated with spinal instrumentation demonstrates good improvement and maintenance of the corrected spinal curves in two thirds of patients, one third showed variable minor and major complications. Low dose CT scan with OMAR provided an effective modality for evaluation.
 
</p></abstract><kwd-group><kwd>AIS</kwd><kwd> Instrumentation</kwd><kwd> Radiology</kwd><kwd> Long-Term</kwd><kwd> Follow up</kwd></kwd-group></article-meta></front><body><sec id="s1"><title>1. Introduction</title><p>AIS is the most common type of spinal deformity treated by surgical fixation. Its onset is usually insidious and its complications may be deadly [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.82269-ref1">1</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.82269-ref2">2</xref>] . Instrumental correction of scoliotic deformities has progressed from Harrington rods, to Cotrel-Dubousset (CD) instrumentation, to the more recent advent of thoracic pedicle screw fixation [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.82269-ref3">3</xref>] - [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.82269-ref8">8</xref>] . Harrington rod application improved coronal deformity yet, sagittal deformity was almost associated flat-back syndrome [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.82269-ref9">9</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.82269-ref10">10</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.82269-ref11">11</xref>] . The use of CD instrumentation improved outcomes, but correction of axial rotation remained questionable [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.82269-ref3">3</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.82269-ref4">4</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.82269-ref5">5</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.82269-ref6">6</xref>] . Recently, the application of pedicle screws-used in all patients of this study-has improved upon many of the limitations from the preceding constructs and provided good maintenance of correction in the short-term [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.82269-ref12">12</xref>] - [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.82269-ref19">19</xref>] .</p><p>Suk et al. [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.82269-ref7">7</xref>] reported outcomes in 78 patients treated with surgical fixation by pedicle screws and reported improved correction rate at 2 years follow up when compared to hybrid constructs. Other studies showed pedicle screws to provide best immediate postoperative correction of coronal curves, planar translation, and rotation [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.82269-ref14">14</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.82269-ref15">15</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.82269-ref16">16</xref>] . Good maintenance at 2 years has been reported in both fused and compensatory curves, as well as a reduction in the number of segments fused and a lower revision rate associated with pedicle screw constructs [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.82269-ref15">15</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.82269-ref19">19</xref>] .</p><p>Although long-term radiological outcomes have been reported for earlier spinal constructs, the radiological evaluation of spinal instrumentation with pedicle screws were mainly based on short follow-up studies with scarce longer term results [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.82269-ref20">20</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.82269-ref21">21</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.82269-ref22">22</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.82269-ref23">23</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.82269-ref24">24</xref>] . Kim et al. [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.82269-ref25">25</xref>] compared hybrid and screw constructs with 5-year minimum follow-up in proximal junctional kyphosis mainly. This study included a large consecutive number of patients (100) to evaluate the long term radiographic outcomes of the recent spinal instrumentation trend in the management of AIS with correlation to the possible clinical scenarios.</p></sec><sec id="s2"><title>2. Materials and Methods</title><p>This study was conducted in Sultan Bin Abdulaziz Humanitarian City (SBAHC), Riyadh, KSA, where 100 AIS patients with spinal pedicle screws fixation were included, after obtaining the informed consents and approval of the SBAHC ethical board. Cases were tracked through the SBAHC Health Information System (HIS) database. Basic demographic data of all patients was retrieved from medical record files. Patients were followed for 5 years (from October 2012 to October 2017) with average duration of follow-up was 3.7 years for all cases.</p><p>Radiological examinations included total spine x-rays, CT scan and MRI at regular 2 years and 5 years intervals. CT scans with 3D reconstruction were performed on a 64-slice CT scanner (Ingenuity; Philips Medical Systems). Parameters used were: Helical CT protocol, Iterative reconstruction: low dose, iDose Level 3 (range, 1 - 5), slice thickness 0.5 mm, slice interval 0.5 mm, matrix 512 &#215; 512, collimation 64 &#215; 0.625 mm, OMAR software, bone window (YD kernel, level 800 HU, width 2000 HU) and soft window (Soft kernel B). The degree of metallic artifacts and clarity of the scanned vertebrae of the 3D reconstruction images using OMAR were evaluated to determine their diagnostic acceptance, only those of satisfactory subjective quality were included.</p><p>Radiological evaluation was done by measuring the Cobb angle on the anteroposterior radiographs usually performed immediately postoperative. Preoperative Cobb angle was then compared to the postoperative Cobb angle to calculate the percentage correction rate. This process was repeated and recorded with each follow up visit. Clinical scenarios and complications were divided into groups including good response and maintenance, infection, surgical revision, pseudarthrosis, neurological deficits, instrumentation-related as screw loosening or complete hardware failure. All complications were managed successfully by surgical revisions, physiotherapy and medications.</p><p>Image quality evaluation was conducted on the source bone and soft tissue windows as well as the 3D reconstruction images. A blinded consultant radiologist, with more than 15 years of experience in radiological diagnosis, conducted the subjective evaluations, including severity of the spinal metallic artifacts, density of the related paraspinal muscles, clarity of the inter-muscular fat planes, and definition of the scanned vertebral elements using a 5-point scale, <xref ref-type="table" rid="table1">Table 1</xref> [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.82269-ref26">26</xref>] . Images scoring 3 or more were considered radiologically satisfactory.</p><p>Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS 12.0.2&#174; (IBM, Armonk, NY) software using Student t tests, Chi square tests and Fisher’s exact tests. Results</p><table-wrap id="table1" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table1">Table 1</xref></label><caption><title> Radiological evaluation of OMAR reconstructed image quality</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" >Score</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Severity of Artifacts</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Density of Muscles</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Clarity of Inter-Muscular planes</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Definition of the vertebral elements</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Severe artifact, obvious distortion</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Heterogeneous</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Cannot be distinguished</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Cannot be distinguished</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Obvious artifact, mild distortion</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Marked</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Distinguishable but obscured</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Distinguishable but obscured</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >3</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Moderate</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Moderate</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Moderate</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Moderate</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >4</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Little artifact without obvious distortion</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Mild heterogeneous</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Blurred edges</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Blurred edges</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >5</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >No artifact</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Homogeneous</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Clear and sharp edges</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Clear and sharp edges</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><p>were reported as average and percentage as number of study group was 100. A “p” value of 0.05 was considered statistically significant.</p></sec><sec id="s3"><title>3. Results</title><p>A total of 100 patients matched the inclusion criteria, 24 (24%) were females and 76 (76%) were males. The average age at operation was 16.5 years and the average duration of follow-up was 3.7 years for all cases. Sixty seven (67%) patients showed good correction and maintenance of the spinal curves over the follow up periods at 2 and 5 year intervals, where the mean Cobb angle was 68˚ preoperatively and 21˚ postoperatively (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig1">Figure 1</xref>). The calculated correction rate was 74%</p><p>in this group. Thirty three (33%) patients showed complications including postoperative infection (13 cases) (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig2">Figure 2</xref>), surgical revision (4 cases), pseudarthrosis (3 cases), neurological deficits (5 cases) (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig3">Figure 3</xref>, <xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig4">Figure 4</xref>), screw loosening, malpositioning and pull-out (7 cases) (Figures 5-7) and complete</p><p>hardware failure (1 case) (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig8">Figure 8</xref>); in whom the preoperative mean Cobb angle was 56˚ compared to the patients with no complications (p =  0.288). In males, there were postoperative complications in 27 out of 76 (35.5%) and in females 5 out of 24 (21%), (p  =  0.027) (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table2">Table 2</xref>).</p><p>Complications took place before the 2-year follow up evaluation in all patients and were managed effectively, resulting in no significant changes between the 2-year and 5-year assessments. Postoperative infection represented almost half of this group and was caused by gram positive organisms in all cases, 12 cases</p><table-wrap id="table2" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table2">Table 2</xref></label><caption><title> Patient information</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  ></th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Patients with no complications (67%)</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Patients with complications (33%)</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >P-value</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >Age (mean in years)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >16.6</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >17.5</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.252</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >Gender</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Male: (76)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >49</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >27</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Female: (24)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >19</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >Preoperative Cobb (in ˚)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >68</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >56</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.288</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >Postoperative Cobb (in ˚)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >21</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >16</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.204</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >Correction rate (%)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >74</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >70</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.216</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >Misplacement rate (%)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >9</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >44</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.454</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >Average follow up period (in years)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><p>were treated successfully over a mean period of 9 months and one case progressed to complete vertebral osteolysis with large epidural abscess and intraspinal extension, treated by antibiotics and requiring drainage of a deep infection (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig2">Figure 2</xref>). One patient had malpositioned screw with high risk of aortic injury (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig7">Figure 7</xref>), which required revision operation. Four patients complained of post- op radicular symptoms and sensory deficits that did not require surgical revision. One patient had a neurological deficit in the form of weak right knee</p><p>flexion postoperatively. CT scan was done for this patient and found to be a misplaced screw encroaching upon the corresponding nerve root at the exit foramen (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig4">Figure 4</xref>), which was subsequently revised. This patient had almost complete neurological recovery at the 5-years follow up visit. One patient had multiple screw pull outs (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig7">Figure 7</xref>) and one had complete hardware failure and the fixation was removed with replacement (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig8">Figure 8</xref>). The other cases were treated by physiotherapy with medications (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig9">Figure 9</xref>).</p></sec><sec id="s4"><title>4. Discussion</title><p>Although the treatment of AIS by spinal instrumentation using pedicle screws is well known in many countries all over the world, this is the first study of its kind in the kingdom of Saudi Arabia, with this large cohort and long term follow up evaluation. Many previous studies comparing earlier instrumentation systems have included the radiological long term outcome evaluation in AIS while the more recent pedicle screws had fewer data to review [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.82269-ref27">27</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.82269-ref28">28</xref>] . Other case studies reported slight increases or progression of radiographic parameters, but most have displayed evidence of correction maintenance with increased follow up periods [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.82269-ref27">27</xref>] . Suk et al. [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.82269-ref7">7</xref>] reported their outcomes on a study group of 203 patients having pedicle screw fixation with at least 5-year follow up, and noted a loss of 3% correction of the main corrected curve over time. Other studies have also reported similar results, but had limited study groups like Hwang et al. [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.82269-ref27">27</xref>] who assessed pedicle screw fixation in 57 patients with 5-year follow up and noted minimal loss of correction from the immediate post-op (2%), but did not comment on changes took place at the 2-year follow up. Di Silvestre et al. [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.82269-ref14">14</xref>] compared hybrid and pedicle screw constructs with a mean follow up of 6.7 years and found good maintenance of correction with screws.</p><p>Our calculated correction rate was 74% in this study and this comes in agreement with other similar yet smaller cohort studies [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.82269-ref27">27</xref>] . We observed that there was no correlation between percentage correction and postoperative clinical scenarios (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table2">Table 2</xref>). About third of patients showed complications in whom the preoperative mean Cobb angle was 56˚ compared to the patients with no complications (p =  0.288). Therefore, those with more correction didn’t necessarily have better postoperative outcomes. This was the same conclusion by Akil and Riaz [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.82269-ref1">1</xref>] , who stated that the surgeon should only correct to a point that is safe to do so, and correction does not yield better results and may predispose the young patients to postoperative complications, especially neurological injury.</p><p>The clinical application of OMAR for post-spinal instrumentation was performed on all patient population coming for regular postoperative evaluations in SBAHC, one of the most prestigious rehabilitation centers in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia with two international accreditations of CARF and JCI and one national accreditation of CBAHI. All cases were scored 3 or more and were accepted by the radiologist (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table1">Table 1</xref>), which confirmed the feasibility of OMAR in spinal instrumentation imaging. The degree of metallic artifacts and the definition of the adjacent vertebrae were all evaluated 4 and 5 points, impressive of little metallic artifacts with no obvious distortion. With the resulting clear 3D spinal reconstructions, the spinal surgeons could be sure about the relationship between vertebrae and the fixing hardware (e.g., the proper placing and depth of transpedicular screws, no injury of the related nerve roots, no loosening or malplacement), evaluate the status of vertebrae surrounding the implant for osteoporosis or infection, and follow up the healing process of fractures. Thus, this technique would help accurate postoperative assessment of spinal fixation of different reasons. To have a complete evaluation of this OMAR technique, it would be of interest to perform a quantitative image analysis of CT numbers as a complement to the qualitative analysis carried out in this study.</p></sec><sec id="s5"><title>5. Conclusion</title><p>Five-year follow up of 100 Saudi patients with AIS treated with spinal instrumentation showed good improvement and maintenance of the corrected spinal curves in two thirds of patients with the regular interval follow up visits. One third of patients in this study showed variable minor and major complications with good overall treatment response at the 5-year interval. Low dose CT scan with the use of orthopedic metal artifact reduction software provided an effective modality for evaluation and follow up.</p></sec><sec id="s6"><title>Acknowledgements</title><p>The author would like to thank the SBAHC Biomedical Statistics Department for performing the statistical analysis in this work.</p></sec><sec id="s7"><title>Ethical Approval</title><p>This study was approved by the SBAHC Ethical Board.</p></sec><sec id="s8"><title>Conflicts of Interest</title><p>The author declares that he has no conflicts of interest.</p></sec><sec id="s9"><title>Author Contributions</title><p>Amir MA selected the subject, reviewed the literature, wrote the paper, selected the images and edited the whole work.</p></sec><sec id="s10"><title>Cite this paper</title><p>Ali, A.M. (2018) Radiological Evaluation of Spinal Instrumentation as Treatment for Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis, a Single Saudi Center 5-Year Experience. Open Journal of Radiology, 8, 1-12. https://doi.org/10.4236/ojrad.2018.81001</p></sec></body><back><ref-list><title>References</title><ref id="scirp.82269-ref1"><label>1</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Akil, A. and Riaz, L. (2012) Fourth-Generation Spinal Instrumentation: Experience with Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis at a Tertiary Care Hospital in Pakistan. International Journal of General Medicine, 5, 151-155.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.82269-ref2"><label>2</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Theologis, N., Fairbank, C., Turner-Smith, R. and Pantazopoulos, T. (1997) Early Detection of Progression in Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis by Measurement of Changes in Back Shape with the Integrated Shape Imaging System Scanner. Spine, 22, 1223-1227. https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-199706010-00010</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.82269-ref3"><label>3</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Cochran, T., Irstam, L. and Nachemson, A. (1983) Long-Term Anatomic and Functional Changes in Patients with Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis Treated by Harrington Rod Fusion. Spine, 8, 576-584. https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-198309000-00003</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.82269-ref4"><label>4</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Danielsson, J. and Nachemson, L. (2003) Back Pain and Function 23 Years after Fusion for Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis: A Case-Control Study-Part II. Spine, 28, 373-383. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.BRS.0000084267.41183.75</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.82269-ref5"><label>5</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Ecker, L., Betz, R., Trent, S., Mahboubi, S., Mesqarzadeh, M., Bonakdapour, A., et al. (1988) Computer Tomography Evaluation in Cotrel-Dubousset Instrumentation in Idiopathic Scoliosis. Spine, 13, 1141-1144. https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-198810000-00015</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.82269-ref6"><label>6</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Shufflebarger, L., Smiley, K. and Roth, J. (1994) Internal Thoracoplasty. A New Procedure. Spine, 19, 840-842. https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-199404000-00020</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.82269-ref7"><label>7</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Suk, S., Choon, L., Won-Joong, K., et al. (1995) Segmental Pedicle Screw Fixation in the Treatment of Thoracic Idiopathic Scoliosis. Spine, 20, 1399-1405. https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-199506020-00012</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.82269-ref8"><label>8</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Wood, B., Transfeldt, E. and Ogilvie, W., et al. (1991) Rotational Changes of the Vertebral-Pelvic Axis Following Cotrel-Dubousset Instrumentation. Spine, 16, S404-S408. https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-199108001-00019</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.82269-ref9"><label>9</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Booth, C., Bridwell, H., Lenke, G., et al. (1999) Complications and Predictive Factors for the Successful Treatment of Flatback Deformity (Fixed Sagittal Imbalance) Spine, 24, 1712-1790. https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-199908150-00013</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.82269-ref10"><label>10</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Bradford, S. and Tribus, B. (1994) Current Concepts and Management of Patients with Fixed Decompensated Spinal Deformity. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, 306, 64-72.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.82269-ref11"><label>11</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Weatherley, R., Draycott, V., O’Brien, F., et al. (1987) The Rib Deformity in Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, 69, 179-182.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.82269-ref12"><label>12</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Asghar, J., Samdani, F., Pahys, M., et al. (2009) Computed Tomography Evaluation of Rotation Correction in Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis: A Comparison of an All Pedicle Screw Construct versus a Hook-Rod System. Spine, 34, 804-807.https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181996c1b</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.82269-ref13"><label>13</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Di Silvestre, M., Bakaloudis, G., Lolli, F., et al. (2008) Posterior Fusion Only for Thoracic Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis of More than 80 Degrees: Pedicle Screws versus Hybrid Instrumentation. European Spine Journal, 17, 1336-1349. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-008-0731-9</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.82269-ref14"><label>14</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Dobbs, B., Lenke, G., Kim, J., et al. (2006) Selective Posterior Thoracic Fusions for Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis: Comparison of Hooks versus Pedicle Screws. Spine, 31, 2400-2404. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.brs.0000240212.31241.8e</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.82269-ref15"><label>15</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Karatoprak, O., Unay, K., Tezer, M., et al. (2008) Comparative Analysis of Pedicle Screw versus Hybrid Instrumentation in Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis Surgery. International Orthopaedics, 32, 523-528. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-007-0359-0</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.82269-ref16"><label>16</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Kim, J., Bridwell, H., Lenke, G., et al. (2005) Proximal Junctional Kyphosis in Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis Following Segmental Posterior Spinal Instrumentation and Fusion: Minimum 5-Year Follow-Up. Spine, 30, 2045-2050.https://doi.org/10.1097/01.brs.0000179084.45839.ad</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.82269-ref17"><label>17</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Liljenqvist, U. (2002) Comparative Analysis of Pedicle Screw and Hook Instrumentation in Posterior Correction and Fusion of Idiopathic Thoracic Scoliosis. European Spine Journal, 11, 336-343. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-002-0415-9</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.82269-ref18"><label>18</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Andersen, O., Christensen, B. and, Thomsen, K. (2006) Outcome at 10 Years after Treatment for Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis. Spine, 31, 350-354.https://doi.org/10.1097/01.brs.0000197649.29712.de</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.82269-ref19"><label>19</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Bjerkreim, I., Steen, H. and Brox, I. (2007) Idiopathic Scoliosis Treated with Cotrel-Dubousset Instrumentation: Evaluation 10 Years after Surgery. Spine, 32, 2103-2110. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e318145a54a</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.82269-ref20"><label>20</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Helenius, I., Remes, V. and Yrjonen, T. (2003) Harrington and Cotrel-Dubousset Instrumentation in Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis. Long-Term Functional and Radiographic Outcomes. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, 85-A, 2303-2309.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.82269-ref21"><label>21</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Kelly, M., McCarthy, E., McCullough, L. and Kelly, R. (2010) Long-Term Outcomes of Anterior Spinal Fusion with Instrumentation for Thoracolumbar and Lumbar Curves in Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis. Spine, 35, 194-198.https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181bc948e</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.82269-ref22"><label>22</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Tis, E., O’Brien, F., Newton, O., et al. (2010) Adolescent idiopathic Scoliosis Treated with Open Instrumented Anterior Spinal Fusion: Five-Year Follow-Up. Spine, 35, 64-70. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181c4af52</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.82269-ref23"><label>23</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Kim, J., Lenke, G., 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.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.82269-ref24"><label>24</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Hu, Y., Pan, S.N., Zhao, X.D., Guo, W.L., He, M. and Guo, Q.Y. (2017) Value and Clinical Application of Orthopedic Metal Artifact Reduction Algorithm in CT Scans after Orthopedic Metal Implantation. Korean Journal of Radiology, 18, 526-535.https://doi.org/10.3348/kjr.2017.18.3.526</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.82269-ref25"><label>25</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Boos, N., Dolan, A. and Weinstein, L. (2007) Long-Term Clinical and Radiographic Results of Cotrel-Dubousset Instrumentation of Right Thoracic Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis. Iowa Orthopaedic Journal, 27, 40-46.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.82269-ref26"><label>26</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Jeng, L., Sponseller, D. and Tolo, T. (1993) Outcome of Wisconsin Instrumentation in Idiopathic Scoliosis. Minimum 5-Year Follow-Up. Spine, 18, 1584-1590.https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-199309000-00003</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.82269-ref27"><label>27</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Hwang, J., Lee, K., Chang, S., et al. (2011) Minimum 5-Year Follow-Up Results of Skipped Pedicle Screw Fixation for Flexible Idiopathic Scoliosis. Journal of Neurosurgery Spine, 15, 146-150. https://doi.org/10.3171/2011.4.SPINE10321</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.82269-ref28"><label>28</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">D’Andrea, L., Betz, R., Lenke, L., et al. (2000) Do Radiographic Parameters Correlate with Clinical Outcomes in Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis? Spine, 25, 1795-1802. https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-200007150-00010</mixed-citation></ref></ref-list></back></article>