Can Breast Asymmetry Following the Treatment of Juvenile Idiopathic Scoliosis with Growing Rod Be Prevented? : A Preliminary Analysis

Objective@#: It can be assumed that the progression of scoliosis in the juvenile period will increase the asymmetry in the rib cage, and thus will contribute to an increase in the breast asymmetry (BA) in the future. We are looking for answers to the questions; “How will the breasts look with respect to each other and what is the possibility of developing BA in the early follow-up period following the early surgical treatment and final fusion surgery of juvenile idiopathic scoliosis (JIS)?” For this reason, in this study, we aimed to evaluate the breast asymmetries of patients in the period after the final fusion. @*Methods@#: Following growing rod treatment, final fusion was achieved in 12 females with JIS. We used the anthropomorphic measurement of the modified BREAST-V formula to assess whether there was an asymmetry between the breasts after an average of 4.8 years (2–11) following final fusion. @*Results@#: In comparison, the mean volume of the left breast (222.4 mL [range, 104.1–330.2]) was larger than the mean volume of the right breast volume (214.5 mL [range, 95.2–326.7]) (p=0.034). The left breast was larger in 75% of the patients. BA was observed in 50% of the patients. No correlation was detected between the Cobb angle of the patient after final fusion and BA (p=0.688). @*Conclusion@#: In the late follow-up period, BA was detected in 50% of the patients with JIS who achieved final fusion after treatment with growing rod. In majority of the patients, left breast was larger. The patients with JIS and their families can be informed prior to the operation about the probability of BA seen in the follow-up period after fusion.

Comparison of the Effects of Magnetically Controlled Growing Rod and Tradiotinal Growing Rod Techniques on the Sagittal Plane in the Treatment of Early-Onset Scoliosis

OBJECTIVE: Comparing the effects of magnetically controlled growing rod (MCGR) and traditional growing rod (TGR) techniques on the sagittal plane in the treatment of early-onset scoliosis (EOS).METHODS: Twelve patients were operated using dual MCGR technique in one center, while 15 patients were operated using dual TGR technique for EOS in another center. Patients’ demographic characteristics, complications and radiological measurements such as cobb angle, thoracic kyphosis, lumbar lordosis, T1–S1 range (mm), proximal junctional angle, distal junctional angle, sagittal balance, coronal balance, pelvic incidence, sacral slope and pelvic tilt were assessed and compared in preoperative, postoperative and last follow-up period.RESULTS: Age and sex distributions were similar in both groups. The mean number of lengthening in the MCGR group was 12 (8–15) and 4.8 (3–7) in the TGR group. Two techniques were shown to be effective in controlling the curvature and in the increase of T1–S1 distance. In TGR group, four patients had rod fractures, six patients had screw pull-out and four patients had an infection, whereas three patients had screw pull-out and one patient had infection complications in the MCGR group.CONCLUSION: There was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of cobb angle, coronal and sagittal balance and sagittal pelvic parameters. MCGR can cause hypokyphosis and proximal junctional kyphosis in a minimum 2-year follow-up period. The implant-related complications were less in the MCGR group. However, larger case groups and longer follow-up periods are required for the better understanding of the superiority of one method on other in terms of complications.

Comparison of the Effects of Magnetically Controlled Growing Rod and Tradiotinal Growing Rod Techniques on the Sagittal Plane in the Treatment of Early-Onset Scoliosis

OBJECTIVE: Comparing the effects of magnetically controlled growing rod (MCGR) and traditional growing rod (TGR) techniques on the sagittal plane in the treatment of early-onset scoliosis (EOS). METHODS: Twelve patients were operated using dual MCGR technique in one center, while 15 patients were operated using dual TGR technique for EOS in another center. Patients’ demographic characteristics, complications and radiological measurements such as cobb angle, thoracic kyphosis, lumbar lordosis, T1–S1 range (mm), proximal junctional angle, distal junctional angle, sagittal balance, coronal balance, pelvic incidence, sacral slope and pelvic tilt were assessed and compared in preoperative, postoperative and last follow-up period. RESULTS: Age and sex distributions were similar in both groups. The mean number of lengthening in the MCGR group was 12 (8–15) and 4.8 (3–7) in the TGR group. Two techniques were shown to be effective in controlling the curvature and in the increase of T1–S1 distance. In TGR group, four patients had rod fractures, six patients had screw pull-out and four patients had an infection, whereas three patients had screw pull-out and one patient had infection complications in the MCGR group. CONCLUSION: There was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of cobb angle, coronal and sagittal balance and sagittal pelvic parameters. MCGR can cause hypokyphosis and proximal junctional kyphosis in a minimum 2-year follow-up period. The implant-related complications were less in the MCGR group. However, larger case groups and longer follow-up periods are required for the better understanding of the superiority of one method on other in terms of complications.