ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Little data exist on pregnancy and childbirth for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) patients treated with a spinal fusion. The current literature relies on data from patients treated with spinal fusion techniques and instrumentation, such as Harrington rods, that are no longer in use. The objective of our study is to understand the effects of spinal fusion in adolescence on pregnancy and childbirth. METHODS: Prospectively collected data of AIS patients undergoing posterior spinal fusion that were enrolled in a multicenter study who have had a pregnancy and childbirth were reviewed. Results were summarized using descriptive statistics and compared with national averages using χ 2 test of independence. RESULTS: A total of 78 babies were born to 53 AIS patients. As part of their pre-natal care, 24% of patients surveyed reported meeting with an anesthesiologist before delivery. The most common types of delivery were spontaneous vaginal delivery (46%, n=36/78) and planned cesarean section (20%, n=16/78). Compared with the national average, study patients had a higher rate of cesarean delivery ( P =0.021). Of the women who had a spontaneous vaginal birth, 53% had no anesthesia (n=19/36), 19% received intravenous intermittent opioids (n=7/36), and 31% had regional spinal or epidural anesthesia (n=11/36). spontaneous vaginal delivery patients in our study cohort received epidural or spinal anesthesia less frequently than the national average ( P <0.001). Of those (n=26 pregnancies) who did not have regional anesthesia (patients who had no anesthesia or utilized IV intermittent opioids), 19% (n=5 pregnancies) were told by their perinatal providers that it was precluded by previous spine surgery. CONCLUSION: The majority of AIS patients reported not meeting with an anesthesiologist before giving birth and those who had a planned C-section did so under obstetrician recommendation. The presence of instrumentation after spinal fusion should be avoided with attempted access to the spinal canal but should not dictate a delivery plan. A multidisciplinary team consisting of obstetrician, anesthesiologist, and orthopaedic surgeon can provide the most comprehensive information to empower a patient to make her decisions regarding birth experience anesthesia based on maternal rather than provider preference. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV.
ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: The SRS annual meeting (SRS-AM) represents the pinnacle of research in the field of spinal deformity. Spine surgery research was historically based on single-surgeon experience, but an increasing number of abstracts presented at SRS-AM are conducted by multicenter study groups, which may have improved the quality of literature available to surgeons. We sought to determine the proportion of SRS-AM podium presentations (PP) resulting from study groups over a 15-year period. METHODS: 1874 PP from the 2005-2019 SRS-AM were reviewed to determine if they resulted from a study group or multicenter collaboration. Abstracts were also classified as pediatric- or adult-focused. Pearson correlations were calculated to analyze changes in the proportion of study group or multicenter PP. RESULTS: The number of SRS PP increased from 102 to 171 from 2005 to 2019. 381 (20.3%) PP were identified as a study group product, while 536 (28.6%) resulted from multicenter collaboration. The proportion of study group PP increased by 0.9% annually from 8.8 to 26.9% (r2 = 0.44, p = 0.007), while multicenter PP increased by 1.2% annually from 11.8 to 40.9% (r2 = 0.51, p = 0.003). A greater proportion of study group PP were level of evidence I or II studies compared to those not resulting from the work of study groups (53.8 vs 19.3%, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: SRS-AM PP resulting from research study groups and multicenter collaborations increased over threefold from 2005 to 2019. Spine surgeons are taking a more proactive approach to produce more generalizable research with higher level of evidence through multicenter study groups, allowing them to make more informed decisions to ultimately improve surgical outcomes for patients. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: V.
