{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.04264524103831891, 'fraction_numerical': 0.023176761433868973, 'mean_word_length': 4.928571428571429, '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}}
Cotrel-Dubousset (CD) or Universal Spine System (USS) Instrumentation in Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis (AIS): Comparison of Midterm Clinical, Functional, and Radiologic Outcomes

Study Design. A retrospective comparison of the clinical, radiologic, and functional results of Cotrell-Dubousset (CD) and Universal Spine System (USS) instrumentation for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS). Objectives. To establish whether there are any differences in outcome between the 2 instrumentation systems. Summary of Background Data. CD is the first complex posterior double rod instrumentation system to provide multiple hook fixation. USS instrumentation permits the use of rod translation instead of rod rotation, the option to secure pedicle hooks with fixation screws, and the option to use transpedicular screws in the lower thoracic and lumbar spine. Midterm and long-term results of USS instrumentation are lacking. Methods. Fifty-seven (mean age, 28 years at follow up) patients treated with CD instrumentation and 55 (mean age, 23 years at follow up) patients treated with USS instrumentation for AIS participated in the study. The average follow-up rate was 80% and time 13.0 years for the CD group, and 95% and 7.8 years for the USS group. Radiographs were obtained before surgery, at 2-year follow up, and at final follow up. Additionally, a physical examination was performed by 2 independent observers, and the Scoliosis Research Society (SRS) questionnaire was completed; spinal mobility and nondynamometric trunk strength were measured at the final follow-up visit. Results. The mean Cobb angle of the instrumented thoracic curve was before surgery 55° (range, 36–83°) for the CD and 52° (range, 35–85°) for the USS group. The mean number of instrumented vertebrae was 9.9 (range, 7–12) in the CD and 9.8 (range, 6–12) in the USS group. At final follow up, the mean angles were 32° (range, 13–63°) for the CD group and 29° (range, 9–63°) for the USS group (not significant). No significant difference was observed in thoracic kyphosis or lumbar lordosis between the study groups at final follow up. In the SRS questionnaire, the total score averaged 97 for the CD and 101 for the USS groups, respectively. In the questionnaire, 6 (11%) patients in the CD group, but none in the USS group, reported having low back pain often or very often at rest. No correlation was found between the Cobb angle of the thoracic or lumbar curves at follow up and the total score or back pain indexes of this questionnaire. Nondynamometric trunk strength measurements corresponded with age- and sex-adjusted reference values, on average, but patients in the CD group performed significantly better in the squatting test (P = 0.021) and patients in the USS group performed better in trunk side bending (P = 0.004). Complications were recorded in 15 (26%) patients in the CD and in 13 (24%) patients in the USS group (not significant). Conclusions. The midterm radiologic and functional outcomes were quite similar in both groups as were the SRS scores. The patients performed, on average, as well as did the reference population in nondynamometric trunk strength measurements. Intraoperative and late complications were similar in both groups.