{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.020064724919093852, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 6.157407407407407, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Comparative Evaluation of Luque and Isola Instrumentation for Treatment of Neuromuscular Scoliosis

Surgical treatment of neuromuscular scoliosis is controversial. Owing to the presumed improvements of the newer instrumentation, we hypothesized that the Isola-Asher instrumentation would have better radiographic results that the Luque-Galveston instrumentation and that these differences would be reflected by the patients’ subjective assessment of activities of daily living. We retrospectively reviewed patients with neuromuscular scoliosis who were treated using Luque-Galveston or Isola-Asher instrumentation to compare the outcomes. Preoperative, postoperative, and followup radiographs were evaluated for change in scoliosis angle, lordosis angle, and pelvic tilt. Subjective and functional results of surgery were evaluated with questionnaires. We found no difference in the degree of scoliosis correction, correction of lumbar hypolordosis or hyperlordosis, pelvic tilt, or complication rate between the two groups of patients with neuromuscular scoliosis treated with Luque-Galveston or Isola-Asher instrumentation. Patient satisfaction based on the response to the questionnaires was similar in both groups. Luque-Galveston and Isola-Asher instrumentation were comparable and equally reliable methods for surgical stabilization and correction of neuromuscular scoliosis. Level of Evidence: Therapeutic study, Level III (retrospective comparative study). See the Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.