Table 5 Comparative studies on the surgical correction of neuromuscular scoliosis
| Â | Current study | Wimmer et al. [12] | Watanabe et al. [13] | Arun et al. [14] | Mattila et al. [10] | Albert et al. [9] |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
No. cases | 33 | 52 | 44 | 43 | 66 | 29 |
Major population (n) | SMA (33) | CP (17) | N (N) | DMD (43) | CP (31) | CP (17) |
Study design | Sublaminar wire vs. hybrid instrumentation | Sublaminar wire vs. hybrid instrumentation | Wire vs. hook vs. anterior screw vs. pedicle screw | Sublaminar wire vs. hybrid vs. pedicle screw | Hybrid instrumentation vs. pedicle screw | Hybrid instrumentationa vs. pedicle screw |
Average follow up (months) | 24 | 42.9 | 48 | 56.4 | 33.6 | 29 |
Surgical outcome on neuromuscular scoliosis. | Better curve correction, less blood loss and less loss of major curve correction in hybrid instrumentation group. | Comparable surgical results and satisfactory questionnaires between the two fixation methods (Luque-Galveston/Isola-Asher system). | Pedicle screws had the greatest correction rate, the smallest loss of correction and the greatest amount of correction of the apical vertebral translation in scoliotic curves greater than 100°. | Comparable results during medium- to long-term follow up for all methods. Longer operating time and more blood loss in the sublaminar wire group. | Pedicle screw group had the shortest operating times, the least blood loss and the best correction of the major curve | Sublaminar bands utilized in a hybrid construct can achieve corrections equivalent to all-pedicle screw constructs |