RESUMO
PURPOSE: The aim of this study is to evaluate and compare techniques and outcomes associated with two different technique of pelvic screw insertion in patients with caudal spine absence. METHODS: A cohort of patients with varying degrees of caudal structural regression, serves as the focal point of this investigation. Pelvic configurations were classified based on established criteria to facilitate comparative analysis. Each patient underwent spinal surgical interventions, with a follow-up period extending beyond 2 years. The primary surgical interventions predominantly involved spinal stabilization coupled with correction of scoliosis and kyphosis through one or two pairs of pelvic screws. RESULTS: In this study, we investigated a cohort of 22 patients with caudal spine absence, encompassing diverse conditions, such as lumbo-sacral aplasia, hemisacrum, and lumbar absence, with preserved sacrum. Following spinal surgery, notable improvements were observed in scoliosis and pathological lumbar kyphosis, with several patients achieving significant functional milestones such as independent ambulation. There were no significant differences in short-term complications between patients undergoing single versus double pair pelvic screw implantation. Long-term complications, primarily non-fusion, were notably more prevalent in patients undergoing fixation with a single pair of pelvic screws. CONCLUSION: Surgical intervention, particularly spinopelvic fixation, demonstrated promising outcomes in terms of improving spinal deformities. The implantation of two pairs of pelvic screws demonstrates greater reliability compared to the insertion of a single pair, diminishing the risk of non-fusion.