Skip to main content
JDRS · Open access journal
Joint Diseases and
Related Surgery
Online manuscript submissionSubmit a manuscript e-ISSN 2687-4792

Original Article · Open access

Does rod overhang matter? Clinical impact in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis and Scheuermann’s kyphosis

PDF Cite this article

Deniz Kargin

Department of Orthopedics and Traumatology, University of Health Sciences, Metin Sabancı Baltalimanı Bone Diseases Training and Research Hospital, İstanbul, Türkiye

ORCID: 0000-0003-4995-6364

Ulas Yavuz

Department of Orthopedics and Traumatology, University of Health Sciences, Metin Sabancı Baltalimanı Bone Diseases Training and Research Hospital, İstanbul, Türkiye Department of Biomedical Engineering, Bahçeşehir University, İstanbul, Türkiye

ORCID: 0000-0001-9638-9687

Batuhan Konu

Department of Orthopedics and Traumatology, University of Health Sciences, Metin Sabancı Baltalimanı Bone Diseases Training and Research Hospital, İstanbul, Türkiye

ORCID: 0009-0005-2990-3830

Abstract

Objectives: The aim of this study was to investigate the potential relationship between rod overhang (RO) and quality of life (QoL) scores, as well as implant-related irritation, in patients with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) and Scheuermann’s kyphosis (SK).

Patients and methods: Between October 2016 and December 2018, a total of 33 pediatric patients with AIS and SK who underwent posterior instrumentation were retrospectively analyzed. On radiographs, the longest RO at both the superior and inferior ends (right or left) was recorded, and patients were grouped according to whether RO exceeded 1 cm. Quality of life outcomes were assessed using the Scoliosis Research Society-22r (SRS-22r), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and Short Form-36 (SF-36) questionnaires, and patients were also asked about implant-end irritation.

Results: Of the patients, 10 were male and 23 were female. The mean age at the time of operation was 15.18 ± 1.98 years, while the mean age at the latest follow-up was 23.85 ± 1.86 years. The median follow-up was 104.08 months. The mean maximum RO was 11.3 ± 7.8 mm superiorly and 11.1 ± 6.2 mm inferiorly. Superior RO correlated significantly with SF-36 role-physical (r = –0.36, p = 0.04) and vitality (r = –0.43, p = 0.01) subdomains; no other significant QoL correlations were found. Implant-related irritation was reported in eight (n = 3 superior, n = 5 inferior) patients. There was no significant difference in RO between patients who did and did not report implant-related irritation (superior p = 0.18 vs. inferior p = 0.48). There were no significant differences in QoL scores (for superior, inferior, and either end; p > 0.05) or in the rate of implant-related irritation between patients with RO greater or less than 1 cm (superior p = 0.70; inferior and either end p = 1.00).

Conclusion: Our study results suggest that rod overhangs up to 3 cm may not be a clinically relevant determinant of patientreported outcomes or implant-related irritation in AIS and SK surgery. From a clinical perspective, this may help reduce concern regarding minor distal or proximal overhang during posterior instrumentation, particularly when optimal correction and fixation require slight extension of the construct. The absence of a measurable association with QoL or irritation also supports a more flexible intraoperative decision-making approach, prioritizing deformity correction and implant stability over strict limitation of rod length within this range.

Declarations

Author Contributions

D.K.: Contributed to the idea/concept, design, control/supervision, and critical review of the manuscript; U.Y.: Contributed to the design, control/supervision, data collection and/or processing, analysis and/or interpretation, literature review, writing of the article, and references and funding-related sections; B.K.: Contributed to data collection and/or processing. All authors read and approved the final version of the manuscript.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declared no conflicts of interest with respect to the authorship and/or publication of this article.

Financial Disclosure

The authors received no financial support for the research and/or authorship of this article.

Data Sharing Statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

AI Disclosure

The authors declare that artificial intelligence (AI) tools were not used, or were used solely for language editing, and had no role in data analysis, interpretation, or the formulation of conclusions. All scientific content, data interpretation, and conclusions are the sole responsibility of the authors. The authors further confirm that AI tools were not used to generate, fabricate, or ‘hallucinate’ references, and that all references have been carefully verified for accuracy.

References

  1. O'Donnell JM, Wu W, Youn A, Mann A, Swarup I. Scheuermann Kyphosis: Current concepts and management. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med 2023;16:521-30. DOI: 10.1007/s12178-023-09861-z.
  2. Thomas JJ, Stans AA, Milbrandt TA, Kremers HM, Shaughnessy WJ, Larson AN. Trends in incidence of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: A modern US populationbased study. J Pediatr Orthop 2021;41:327-32. DOI: 10.1097/BPO.0000000000001808.
  3. Tambe AD, Panikkar SJ, Millner PA, Tsirikos AI. Current concepts in the surgical management of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Bone Joint J 2018;100-B:415-24. DOI: 10.1302/0301-620X.100B4.BJJ-2017-0846.R2.
  4. Altaf F, Gibson A, Dannawi Z, Noordeen H. Adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. BMJ 2013;346:f2508. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.f2508.
  5. Wood KB, Melikian R, Villamil F. Adult Scheuermann kyphosis: Evaluation, management, and new developments. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 2012;20:113-21. DOI: 10.5435/JAAOS-20-02-113.
  6. Darnis A, Grobost P, Roussouly P. Very long-term clinical and radiographic outcomes after posterior spinal fusion with pedicular screws for thoracic adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Spine Deform 2021;9:441-9. DOI: 10.1007/s43390-020-00217-y.
  7. Debnath UK, Quraishi NA, McCarthy MJH, McConnell JR, Mehdian SMH, Shetaiwi A, et al. Long-term outcome after surgical treatment of Scheuermann's Kyphosis (SK). Spine Deform 2022;10:387-97. DOI: 10.1007/s43390-021-00410-7.
  8. Tang A, Yeroushalmi D, Zak S, Lygrisse K, Schwarzkopf R, Meftah M. The effect of implant size difference on patient outcomes and failure after bilateral simultaneous total knee arthroplasty. J Orthop 2020;22:282-287. DOI: 10.1016/j.jor.2020.06.009.
  9. Lee JA, Koh YG, Kang KT. Biomechanical and clinical effect of patient-specific or customized knee implants: A review. J Clin Med 2020;9:1559. DOI: 10.3390/jcm9051559.
  10. Thanasas C, Kontakis G, Angoules A, Limb D, Giannoudis P. Treatment of proximal humerus fractures with locking plates: A systematic review. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2009;18:837-44. DOI: 10.1016/j.jse.2009.06.004.
  11. Jin C, Wang S, Yang G, Li E, Liang Z. A review of the methods on Cobb angle measurements for spinal curvature. Sensors (Basel) 2022;22:3258. DOI: 10.3390/s22093258.
  12. Khattab MF, Saad MM, El Hawary Y. The surgical management of Scheurmann’s kyphosis: Efficacy and safety of a low density posterior pedicle screw construct. Curr Orthop Pract 2023;34:240-247. DOI: 10.1097/BCO.0000000000001220.
  13. Fairbank JC, Pynsent PB. The Oswestry Disability Index. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2000;25:2940-52. DOI: 10.1097/00007632-200011150-00017.
  14. Asher MA, Lai SM, Glattes RC, Burton DC, Alanay A, Bago J. Refinement of the SRS-22 Health-Related Quality of Life questionnaire Function domain. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2006;31:593-7. DOI: 10.1097/01.brs.0000201331.50597.ea.
  15. Laucis NC, Hays RD, Bhattacharyya T. Scoring the SF-36 in orthopaedics: A brief guide. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2015;97:1628-34. DOI: 10.2106/JBJS.O.00030.
  16. Wichlas F, Haas NP, Disch A, Machó D, Tsitsilonis S. Complication rates and reduction potential of palmar versus dorsal locking plate osteosynthesis for the treatment of distal radius fractures. J Orthop Traumatol 2014;15:259- 64. DOI: 10.1007/s10195-014-0306-y.
  17. Abumi K, Shono Y, Ito M, Taneichi H, Kotani Y, Kaneda K. Complications of pedicle screw fixation in reconstructive surgery of the cervical spine. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2000;25:962-9. DOI: 10.1097/00007632-200004150-00011.
  18. Wang X, Wu XD, Zhang Y, Zhu Z, Jiang J, Li G, et al. The necessity of implant removal after fixation of thoracolumbar burst fractures-a systematic review. J Clin Med 2023;12:2213. DOI: 10.3390/jcm12062213.
  19. Niu S, Yang D, Ma Y, Lin S, Xu X. Is removal of the internal fixation after successful intervertebral fusion necessary? A case-control study based on patient-reported quality of life. J Orthop Surg Res 2022;17:141. DOI: 10.1186/s13018-022-03031-6.
  20. Lorente R, Palacios P, Vaccaro A, Mariscal G, Diamantopoulus J, Lorente A. Safety and utility of implant removal after percutaneous osteosynthesis of type A thoracolumbar and lumbar fracture. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 2021;107:102740. DOI: 10.1016/j.otsr.2020.08.013.
  21. Tetreault TA, Gasca J, Chen V, Andras LM. Partial removal of spinal implants for pain after posterior spinal fusion for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: a report of 3 cases. JBJS J Orthop Physician Assist 2024;12:e23.00019.
  22. Han L, Ma H, Li Q, Yuan J, Yang H, Qin Y, et al. The association of rod curvature with postoperative outcomes in patients undergoing posterior lumbar interbody fusion for spinal stenosis: A retrospective case-control study. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2023;24:304. DOI: 10.1186/s12891-023-06404-y.
  23. Matsen FA 3rd, Stephens L, Jette JL, Warme WJ, Posner KL. Lessons regarding the safety of orthopaedic patient care: An analysis of four hundred and sixty-four closed malpractice claims. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2013;95:e201-8. DOI: 10.2106/JBJS.K.01272.
  24. Sankey EW, Mehta VA, Wang TY, Than TT, Goodwin CR, Karikari IO, et al. The medicolegal impact of misplaced pedicle and lateral mass screws on spine surgery in the United States. Neurosurg Focus 2020;49:E20. DOI: 10.3171/2020.8.FOCUS20600.
  25. Billig JI, Sears ED, Travis BN, Waljee JF. Patient-reported outcomes: Understanding surgical efficacy and quality from the patient's perspective. Ann Surg Oncol 2020;27:56- 64. DOI: 10.1245/s10434-019-07748-3.
  26. Crawford CH 3rd, Glassman SD, Bridwell KH, Berven SH, Carreon LY. The minimum clinically important difference in SRS-22R total score, appearance, activity and pain domains after surgical treatment of adult spinal deformity. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2015;40:377-81. DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000000761.
  27. Copay AG, Glassman SD, Subach BR, Berven S, Schuler TC, Carreon LY. Minimum clinically important difference in lumbar spine surgery patients: A choice of methods using the Oswestry Disability Index, Medical Outcomes Study questionnaire Short Form 36, and pain scales. Spine J 2008;8:968-74. DOI: 10.1016/j.spinee.2007.11.006.
  28. Pishnamaz M, Migliorini F, Blume C, Kobbe P, Trobisch P, Delbrück H, et al. Long-term outcomes of spinal fusion in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: A literature review. Eur J Med Res 2024;29:534. DOI: 10.1186/s40001-024-02052-7.
  29. Etemadifar M, Ebrahimzadeh A, Hadi A, Feizi M. Comparison of Scheuermann's kyphosis correction by combined anterior-posterior fusion versus posterior-only procedure. Eur Spine J 2016;25:2580-6. DOI: 10.1007/s00586-015-4234-1.