What question did this study set out to answer?

This study aims to compare the efficacy of the spring distraction system across different etiologies of early onset scoliosis.

June 4, 2026Spine Deformity0 citationsOpen Access

Efficacy of the spring distraction system for different etiologies of early onset scoliosis: evaluating an evolving treatment concept

CTCasper S. Tabeling IBIsabelle E. Blaauw HSHilde W. Stempels

Key Points

This study aims to compare the efficacy of the spring distraction system across different etiologies of early onset scoliosis.
Analyzed SDS data from 64 patients with a minimum of two-year follow-up.
Measured curve correction, spinal growth, complications, and unplanned return to OR across congenital, neuromuscular, and idiopathic groups.
Utilized mixed repeated-measures ANOVA and linear mixed models for outcome comparisons.
Curve correction was maintained in congenital and neuromuscular patients, while idiopathic patients showed an increase in Cobb angle (3.6°/year).
Spinal growth averaged 7.4 mm/year (idiopathic), 8.9 mm/year (congenital), and 9.8 mm/year (neuromuscular).
Complication rates were comparable; UPROR rates were lowest in idiopathic patients (0.07/patient/year).

Abstract

PURPOSE: Early onset scoliosis (EOS) is a challenging condition that often requires "growth-friendly" implants to control the curve and accommodate spinal growth, especially in young patients with severe curves. The spring distraction system (SDS) was developed to support growth without the need for repeated lengthenings. This prospective cohort study aimed to compare the performance of the SDS between patients with different EOS etiologies. METHODS: We analyzed all SDS patients with a minimum of two-year follow-up. We measured curve correction, sagittal parameters, spinal growth, complications and unplanned return to the OR (UPROR) and compared these outcomes between different etiological groups. Differences between pre- and postoperative were compared with a mixed repeated-measures ANOVA. Differences between postoperative and later follow-up were compared using linear mixed models. Complications and UPROR rates were compared with a Kaplan-Meier survival analysis. RESULTS: Sixty-four patients were included (14 congenital, 41 neuromuscular, and 9 idiopathic). Mean age at surgery was 8.4 ± 1.7 years. Follow-up was 3.7 ± 1.4 years. Correction was maintained for congenital and neuromuscular patients. In idiopathic patients, Cobb angle increased during follow-up (3.6°/year). T1-S1 growth was 7.4 mm/year (idiopathic), 8.9 mm/year (congenital), and 9.8 mm/year (neuromuscular). Fifty-nine complications occurred (mostly implant-related), corresponding to a complication rate of 0.22/patient/year (congenital), 0.26/patient/year (neuromuscular) and 0.27/patient/year (idiopathic). Forty-two UPRORs were recorded, corresponding to an UPROR rate of 0.19/patient/year (congenital), 0.20/patient/year (neuromuscular) and 0.07/patient/year (idiopathic). CONCLUSION: The SDS performs well across EOS etiologies in terms of curve correction, spinal growth, and complication/UPROR rates. Idiopathic patients had less sustained correction. Complication rates were comparable, idiopathic patients had the lowest UPROR rate. TRIAL REGISTRATION: GRADS study (NL55705.041.16). BiPOWR study (NCT04021784).

Ask AI

Helpful

Bookmark

View Full Paper