Growth-Friendly Spine Surgery in Escobar Syndrome.

BACKGROUND: The aims of this study were to characterize the spinal deformity of patients with Escobar syndrome, describe results of growth-friendly treatments, and compare these results with those of an idiopathic early-onset scoliosis (EOS) cohort to determine whether the axial stiffness in Escobar syndrome limited correction. METHODS: We used 2 multicenter databases to review the records of 8 patients with EOS associated with Escobar syndrome who had at least 2-year follow-up after initiation of growth-friendly treatment from 1990 to 2016. An idiopathic EOS cohort of 16 patients matched for age at surgery (±1 y), postoperative follow-up (±1 y), and initial curve magnitude (±10 degrees) was identified. A randomized 1:2 matching algorithm was applied (α=0.05). RESULTS: In the Escobar group, spinal deformity involved 7 to 13 vertebrae and ranged from no vertebral anomalies in 3 patients to multiple segmentation defects in 6 patients. Mean age at first surgery was 5 years (range, 1.4 to 7.8 y) with a mean follow-up of 7.5 years (range, 4.0 to 10 y). Mean major curve improved from 76 degrees at initial presentation, to 43 degrees at first instrumentation, to 37 degrees at final follow-up (both P<0.001). Mean pelvic obliquity improved from 16 degrees (range, 5 to 31 degrees) preoperatively to 4 degrees (range, 0 to 8 degrees) at final follow-up (P=0.005). There were no differences in the mean percentage of major curve correction between the idiopathic EOS and Escobar groups at the immediate postoperative visit (P=0.743) or final follow-up (P=0.511). There were no differences between the cohorts in T1-S1 height at initial presentation (P=0.129) or in growth per month (P=0.211). CONCLUSIONS: Multiple congenital fusions and spinal curve deformity are common in Escobar syndrome. Despite large areas of congenital fusion, growth-friendly constructs facilitate spinal growth and improve curve correction. These results are comparable to those in idiopathic EOS. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III-case-control study.

Growing Rods Versus Shilla Growth Guidance: Better Cobb Angle Correction and T1-S1 Length Increase But More Surgeries.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective comparison. OBJECTIVES: To compare treatment of early-onset scoliosis (EOS) with Shilla growth guidance versus distraction-based dual growing rods (GR). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: We are not aware of any prior studies comparing the Shilla procedure with other surgical procedures in the treatment of EOS. METHODS: The authors performed a multicenter case-matched comparison of patients with EOS treated with Shilla versus dual spine-spine GR from 1995 to 2009. A total of 36 Shilla patients from 3 centers were matched with 36 GR patients from the database by age at index surgery (±1 year), preoperative Cobb angle (±15°), and diagnosis (neuromuscular, congenital, idiopathic, or syndromic). Average follow-up was similar between groups (GR, 4.3 years; Shilla, 4.6 years; p = .353). RESULTS: Average Cobb angle improvement preoperatively to latest follow-up was 36° (range, 72° to 36°) in the GR group versus 23° (range, 69° to 45°) in the Shilla group (p = .0124). T1-S1 length increased 8.8 cm in patients treated with GR, compared with 6.4 cm in Shilla patients (p = .0170). Shilla patients had fewer surgeries (2.8) than patients in the GR group (7.4) (p < .001) but had a higher rate of unplanned surgeries for implant complications (Shilla, 1.3; GR, 0.5; p = .0151). When revisions for implant complications done at the time of scheduled lengthenings and revisions for construct maintenance were included, the groups did not differ significantly in the number of procedures for implant complications (Shilla, 1.4; GR, 1.5; p = .9451). The overall complication rate did not differ significantly between groups (Shilla, 1.9 [range, 0-7]; GR, 1.3 [range, 0-9]; p = .2085). CONCLUSIONS: The GR group had a greater improvement in Cobb angle and a greater increase in T1-S1 length than Shilla. The GR patients had more surgeries but Shilla patients had more unplanned procedures. The rate of complications overall did not differ significantly between groups.

Do we know when our clients get worse? an investigation of therapists' ability to detect negative client change.

Routine clinical judgment is often relied upon to detect client deterioration. How reliable are therapists' judgments of deterioration? Two related studies were conducted to investigate therapist detection of client deterioration and therapist treatment decisions in situations of deterioration. The first study examined therapists' ability to detect client deterioration through the review of therapy progress notes. Therapist treatment decisions in cases of client deterioration were also explored. Therapists had considerable difficulty recognizing client deterioration, challenging the assumption that routine clinical judgment is sufficient when attempting to detect client deterioration. A second study was a survey of therapists asking how they detect client deterioration and what treatment decisions they make in response. Symptom worsening was the most commonly stated cue of deterioration.

The case manager: an essential link in quality care.

The role of case manager is often untapped or underutilized. Nursing case management is recognized by accrediting entities as a unique specialty practice and, when consistently applied, is the holistic implementation of the nursing process focused on an individual's needs, coupled with a commitment to the role of advocate and educator. Case managers on multidisciplinary teams help ensure continuity of care and consistency of communication; they are invaluable advocates for patients navigating the complexities of the current health care system.