title: Adult degenerative scoliosis: comparison of patient-rated outcome after three different surgical treatments.
abstract: Few studies have examined the effectiveness of surgical treatment for adult degenerative scoliosis (ADS) using validated patient-orientated outcome instruments. This study reports patient outcomes in a large, consecutive series of patients being treated for ADS by simple decompression (D), short fusion (SF), or long fusion (LF).
  
  
  
  Our local spine surgery database (part of the Eurospine Spine Tango Registry) was used to acquire the data from patients with ADS undergoing D, SF or LF. Preoperatively and at 12 and 24 months follow-up (FU), patients completed the multidimensional Core Outcome Measures Index (COMI; 0-10); at FU, satisfaction and global outcome were rated on a five-point Likert scale and dichotomised as "good" and "poor", and patient-rated complications were recorded.
  
  
  
  173 patients took part (81 D, 53 SF, 39 LF). Compared with the two fusion groups, the D group was significantly older, had more comorbidity, and had more leg pain than back pain (each p < 0.05). There were significant differences among the groups for operation duration, blood loss and general complications (each p < 0.05), in each case with the LF group showing the greatest values and the D group the lowest values. However, patient-rated complications were not significantly different between the groups (p > 0.89). Further surgery within the 2-year follow-up was required in 7 % of the D group, 15 % in SF and 28 % in LF. All groups benefited significantly from surgery with no significant differences (p > 0.05) between them: improvement in COMI after 24 months was 2.9 ± 2.8 points for D, 3.1 ± 3.3 points for SF and 3.2 ± 3.1 points for LF; a "good global outcome" was recorded for 69, 74 and 76 % patients, respectively.
  
  
  
  Despite the complexity of the disease, patient-orientated outcomes after surgery for ADS were similar to those previously reported using the same outcome instruments in patients with lumbar stenosis and degenerative spondylolisthesis. The use of D, SF and LF for ADS yielded similarly good results from the patient's perspective. This most likely reflects careful and appropriate patient selection. Further analyses are warranted to identify baseline variables predicting the 26-31 % cases in each group with a poor outcome.
authors.affiliation: Spine Center, Schulthess Klinik, Lengghalde 2, 8008, Zurich, Switzerland.
authors.forename: F S
authors.initials: FS
authors.lastname: Kleinstueck
authors.affiliation: Spine Center, Schulthess Klinik, Lengghalde 2, 8008, Zurich, Switzerland.
authors.forename: T F
authors.initials: TF
authors.lastname: Fekete
authors.affiliation: Spine Center, Schulthess Klinik, Lengghalde 2, 8008, Zurich, Switzerland.
authors.forename: D
authors.initials: D
authors.lastname: Jeszenszky
authors.affiliation: Spine Center, Schulthess Klinik, Lengghalde 2, 8008, Zurich, Switzerland.
authors.forename: D
authors.initials: D
authors.lastname: Haschtmann
authors.affiliation: Spine Center, Schulthess Klinik, Lengghalde 2, 8008, Zurich, Switzerland. anne@annefmannion.com.
authors.forename: A F
authors.initials: AF
authors.lastname: Mannion
mesh_terms: D000328:Adult; D015331:Cohort Studies; D019299:Decompression, Surgical / Q000009:adverse effects / Q000379:methods / Q000706:statistics & numerical data; D006801:Humans; D012600:Scoliosis / Q000601:surgery*; D013123:Spinal Fusion / Q000009:adverse effects / Q000379:methods / Q000706:statistics & numerical data; D016896:Treatment Outcome
keywords: Adult degenerative scoliosis; Decompression; Fusion; Patient-rated outcomes
references.citation: Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2009 May 15;34(11):1198-203
references.pmid: 19407677
references.citation: Spine J. 2009 Apr;9(4):317-22
references.pmid: 18774752
references.citation: Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1993 May;18(6):700-3
references.pmid: 8516697
references.citation: Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2005 Jul 15;30(14):1670-3
references.pmid: 16025039
references.citation: Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2007 Sep 1;32(19 Suppl):S135-9
references.pmid: 17728681
references.citation: Neurosurg Focus. 2010 Mar;28(3):E1
references.pmid: 20192655
references.citation: Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2012 May 20;37(12):1077-82
references.pmid: 22045006
references.citation: Eur Spine J. 2009 Aug;18 Suppl 3:374-9
references.pmid: 19296136
references.citation: Eur Spine J. 2005 Dec;14(10):1014-26
references.pmid: 15937673
references.citation: Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2012 Sep 15;37(20):1763-70
references.pmid: 22487710
references.citation: Musculoskelet Surg. 2013 Apr;97(1):1-8
references.pmid: 23553440
references.citation: Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2006 Sep 1;31(19 Suppl):S119-25
references.pmid: 16946628
references.citation: Eur Spine J. 2009 Aug;18 Suppl 3:312-20
references.pmid: 19562389
references.citation: Neurosurg Focus. 2010 Mar;28(3):E3
references.pmid: 20192664
references.citation: Spine J. 2013 Jun;13(6):615-24
references.pmid: 23523445
references.citation: Eur Spine J. 2009 Apr;18(4):531-7
references.pmid: 19165507
references.citation: Value Health. 2008 Sep-Oct;11(5):927-32
references.pmid: 18489521
references.citation: Eur Spine J. 2005 Dec;14(10):925-48
references.pmid: 16328223
references.citation: Eur Spine J. 2012 Feb;21(2):268-75
references.pmid: 21786174
references.citation: Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1992 May;17(5):518-27
references.pmid: 1621151
references.citation: Eur Spine J. 2011 Jul;20(7):1166-73
references.pmid: 21225437
references.citation: Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2006 Aug 15;31(18):2109-14
references.pmid: 16915098
references.citation: Eur Spine J. 2009 Aug;18 Suppl 3:367-73
references.pmid: 19319578
references.citation: Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2010 Sep 15;35(20):1872-5
references.pmid: 20802398
references.citation: Eur Spine J. 2009 Aug;18 Suppl 3:380-5
references.pmid: 19390874
references.citation: Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1999 Dec 15;24(24):2617-29
references.pmid: 10635525