Are rib versus spine anchors protective against breakage of growing rods?

Kent T. Yamaguchi, David L. Skaggs, Shaun Mansour, Karen S. Myung, Muharram Yazici, Charles Johnston, George Thompson, Paul Sponseller, Behrooz A. Akbarnia, Michael G. Vitale

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

12 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

esults Thirty-four patients had rib-anchored growing rods and 142 had spine-anchored growing rods. This analysis found that proximal rib-anchored growing rods have a 23% risk of lifetime rod breakage compared with spine-anchored growing rods (6% vs. 29%) (p =.041) without a significant increase in risk of anchor complications (38% vs. 33%) (p =.117). The number of implanted rods (p =.839), age (p =.649), and number of instrumented levels (p =.447) were not statistically significant regarding rod breakage risk, although higher preoperative Cobb angles were significant (p =.014).

Conclusions Preoperative Cobb angle appears to be the most influential factor in determining whether growing rods break (p =.014). Univariate analysis found that rib anchors were associated with less than one-fourth the risk of rod breakage than spine anchors (p =.04) but multivariate analysis found no significant association between anchors and rod breakage (p =.07). This trend suggests that rib-anchored growing rod systems may be associated with less rod breakage because the system is less rigid as a result of some "slop" at the hook-rib interface, as well as the normal motion of the costovertebral joint.

Study Design Retrospective multicenter, case-control study.

Objective To compare the risks of rod breakage and anchor complications between distraction-based growing rods with proximal spine versus rib anchors.

Summary of Background Data Rod breakage is a known complication of distraction-based growing rod instrumentation.

Methods A total of 176 patients met inclusion criteria: minimum 2-year follow-up, younger than age 9 years at index surgery, non-Vertical Expandable Prosthetic Titanium Rib distraction-based growing rods, and known anchor locations. Mean follow-up was 56 months (range, 24-152 months). Survival analyses using Cox proportional hazards model (accounting for varying lengths of follow-up) of rod breakage, anchor complications, preoperative Cobb angle, number of growing rods, age, and number of levels instrumented were performed using a significance level of p <.05.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)489-492
Number of pages4
JournalSpine Deformity
Volume2
Issue number6
DOIs
StatePublished - Nov 1 2014

Fingerprint

Ribs
Spine
Survival Analysis
Titanium
Proportional Hazards Models
Case-Control Studies
Multivariate Analysis
Retrospective Studies
Joints

Keywords

  • Anchors
  • Complications
  • Distraction-based growing rods
  • Rod breakage

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Orthopedics and Sports Medicine

Cite this

Yamaguchi, K. T., Skaggs, D. L., Mansour, S., Myung, K. S., Yazici, M., Johnston, C., ... Vitale, M. G. (2014). Are rib versus spine anchors protective against breakage of growing rods? Spine Deformity, 2(6), 489-492. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jspd.2014.08.007

Are rib versus spine anchors protective against breakage of growing rods? / Yamaguchi, Kent T.; Skaggs, David L.; Mansour, Shaun; Myung, Karen S.; Yazici, Muharram; Johnston, Charles; Thompson, George; Sponseller, Paul; Akbarnia, Behrooz A.; Vitale, Michael G.

In: Spine Deformity, Vol. 2, No. 6, 01.11.2014, p. 489-492.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Yamaguchi, KT, Skaggs, DL, Mansour, S, Myung, KS, Yazici, M, Johnston, C, Thompson, G, Sponseller, P, Akbarnia, BA & Vitale, MG 2014, 'Are rib versus spine anchors protective against breakage of growing rods?', Spine Deformity, vol. 2, no. 6, pp. 489-492. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jspd.2014.08.007
Yamaguchi, Kent T. ; Skaggs, David L. ; Mansour, Shaun ; Myung, Karen S. ; Yazici, Muharram ; Johnston, Charles ; Thompson, George ; Sponseller, Paul ; Akbarnia, Behrooz A. ; Vitale, Michael G. / Are rib versus spine anchors protective against breakage of growing rods?. In: Spine Deformity. 2014 ; Vol. 2, No. 6. pp. 489-492.
@article{a9748a4ad6e3474aa0782f6f2c91e835,
title = "Are rib versus spine anchors protective against breakage of growing rods?",
abstract = "esults Thirty-four patients had rib-anchored growing rods and 142 had spine-anchored growing rods. This analysis found that proximal rib-anchored growing rods have a 23{\%} risk of lifetime rod breakage compared with spine-anchored growing rods (6{\%} vs. 29{\%}) (p =.041) without a significant increase in risk of anchor complications (38{\%} vs. 33{\%}) (p =.117). The number of implanted rods (p =.839), age (p =.649), and number of instrumented levels (p =.447) were not statistically significant regarding rod breakage risk, although higher preoperative Cobb angles were significant (p =.014).Conclusions Preoperative Cobb angle appears to be the most influential factor in determining whether growing rods break (p =.014). Univariate analysis found that rib anchors were associated with less than one-fourth the risk of rod breakage than spine anchors (p =.04) but multivariate analysis found no significant association between anchors and rod breakage (p =.07). This trend suggests that rib-anchored growing rod systems may be associated with less rod breakage because the system is less rigid as a result of some {"}slop{"} at the hook-rib interface, as well as the normal motion of the costovertebral joint.Study Design Retrospective multicenter, case-control study.Objective To compare the risks of rod breakage and anchor complications between distraction-based growing rods with proximal spine versus rib anchors.Summary of Background Data Rod breakage is a known complication of distraction-based growing rod instrumentation.Methods A total of 176 patients met inclusion criteria: minimum 2-year follow-up, younger than age 9 years at index surgery, non-Vertical Expandable Prosthetic Titanium Rib distraction-based growing rods, and known anchor locations. Mean follow-up was 56 months (range, 24-152 months). Survival analyses using Cox proportional hazards model (accounting for varying lengths of follow-up) of rod breakage, anchor complications, preoperative Cobb angle, number of growing rods, age, and number of levels instrumented were performed using a significance level of p <.05.",
keywords = "Anchors, Complications, Distraction-based growing rods, Rod breakage",
author = "Yamaguchi, {Kent T.} and Skaggs, {David L.} and Shaun Mansour and Myung, {Karen S.} and Muharram Yazici and Charles Johnston and George Thompson and Paul Sponseller and Akbarnia, {Behrooz A.} and Vitale, {Michael G.}",
year = "2014",
month = "11",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.jspd.2014.08.007",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "2",
pages = "489--492",
journal = "Spine Deformity",
issn = "2212-134X",
publisher = "Elsevier BV",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Are rib versus spine anchors protective against breakage of growing rods?

AU - Yamaguchi, Kent T.

AU - Skaggs, David L.

AU - Mansour, Shaun

AU - Myung, Karen S.

AU - Yazici, Muharram

AU - Johnston, Charles

AU - Thompson, George

AU - Sponseller, Paul

AU - Akbarnia, Behrooz A.

AU - Vitale, Michael G.

PY - 2014/11/1

Y1 - 2014/11/1

N2 - esults Thirty-four patients had rib-anchored growing rods and 142 had spine-anchored growing rods. This analysis found that proximal rib-anchored growing rods have a 23% risk of lifetime rod breakage compared with spine-anchored growing rods (6% vs. 29%) (p =.041) without a significant increase in risk of anchor complications (38% vs. 33%) (p =.117). The number of implanted rods (p =.839), age (p =.649), and number of instrumented levels (p =.447) were not statistically significant regarding rod breakage risk, although higher preoperative Cobb angles were significant (p =.014).Conclusions Preoperative Cobb angle appears to be the most influential factor in determining whether growing rods break (p =.014). Univariate analysis found that rib anchors were associated with less than one-fourth the risk of rod breakage than spine anchors (p =.04) but multivariate analysis found no significant association between anchors and rod breakage (p =.07). This trend suggests that rib-anchored growing rod systems may be associated with less rod breakage because the system is less rigid as a result of some "slop" at the hook-rib interface, as well as the normal motion of the costovertebral joint.Study Design Retrospective multicenter, case-control study.Objective To compare the risks of rod breakage and anchor complications between distraction-based growing rods with proximal spine versus rib anchors.Summary of Background Data Rod breakage is a known complication of distraction-based growing rod instrumentation.Methods A total of 176 patients met inclusion criteria: minimum 2-year follow-up, younger than age 9 years at index surgery, non-Vertical Expandable Prosthetic Titanium Rib distraction-based growing rods, and known anchor locations. Mean follow-up was 56 months (range, 24-152 months). Survival analyses using Cox proportional hazards model (accounting for varying lengths of follow-up) of rod breakage, anchor complications, preoperative Cobb angle, number of growing rods, age, and number of levels instrumented were performed using a significance level of p <.05.

AB - esults Thirty-four patients had rib-anchored growing rods and 142 had spine-anchored growing rods. This analysis found that proximal rib-anchored growing rods have a 23% risk of lifetime rod breakage compared with spine-anchored growing rods (6% vs. 29%) (p =.041) without a significant increase in risk of anchor complications (38% vs. 33%) (p =.117). The number of implanted rods (p =.839), age (p =.649), and number of instrumented levels (p =.447) were not statistically significant regarding rod breakage risk, although higher preoperative Cobb angles were significant (p =.014).Conclusions Preoperative Cobb angle appears to be the most influential factor in determining whether growing rods break (p =.014). Univariate analysis found that rib anchors were associated with less than one-fourth the risk of rod breakage than spine anchors (p =.04) but multivariate analysis found no significant association between anchors and rod breakage (p =.07). This trend suggests that rib-anchored growing rod systems may be associated with less rod breakage because the system is less rigid as a result of some "slop" at the hook-rib interface, as well as the normal motion of the costovertebral joint.Study Design Retrospective multicenter, case-control study.Objective To compare the risks of rod breakage and anchor complications between distraction-based growing rods with proximal spine versus rib anchors.Summary of Background Data Rod breakage is a known complication of distraction-based growing rod instrumentation.Methods A total of 176 patients met inclusion criteria: minimum 2-year follow-up, younger than age 9 years at index surgery, non-Vertical Expandable Prosthetic Titanium Rib distraction-based growing rods, and known anchor locations. Mean follow-up was 56 months (range, 24-152 months). Survival analyses using Cox proportional hazards model (accounting for varying lengths of follow-up) of rod breakage, anchor complications, preoperative Cobb angle, number of growing rods, age, and number of levels instrumented were performed using a significance level of p <.05.

KW - Anchors

KW - Complications

KW - Distraction-based growing rods

KW - Rod breakage

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84908376337&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84908376337&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.jspd.2014.08.007

DO - 10.1016/j.jspd.2014.08.007

M3 - Article

C2 - 27927411

AN - SCOPUS:84908376337

VL - 2

SP - 489

EP - 492

JO - Spine Deformity

JF - Spine Deformity

SN - 2212-134X

IS - 6

ER -