Display options
Cite
Ameri E, Ghandhari H, Hesarikia H, et al. Comparison of harrington rod and cotrel-dubousset devices in surgical correction of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Trauma Mon. 2013;18(3):134-8doi: 10.5812/traumamon.14663.
Ameri, E., Ghandhari, H., Hesarikia, H., Rasouli, H. R., Vahidtari, H., & Nabizadeh, N. (2013). Comparison of harrington rod and cotrel-dubousset devices in surgical correction of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Trauma monthly, 18(3), 134-8. https://doi.org/10.5812/traumamon.14663
Ameri, Ebrahim, et al. "Comparison of harrington rod and cotrel-dubousset devices in surgical correction of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis." Trauma monthly vol. 18,3 (2013): 134-8. doi: https://doi.org/10.5812/traumamon.14663
Ameri E, Ghandhari H, Hesarikia H, Rasouli HR, Vahidtari H, Nabizadeh N. Comparison of harrington rod and cotrel-dubousset devices in surgical correction of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Trauma Mon. 2013 Dec;18(3):134-8. doi: 10.5812/traumamon.14663. Epub 2013 Oct 14. PMID: 24350172; PMCID: PMC3864399.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

Trauma Mon. 2013 Dec;18(3):134-8. doi: 10.5812/traumamon.14663. Epub 2013 Oct 14.

Comparison of harrington rod and cotrel-dubousset devices in surgical correction of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis.

Trauma monthly

Ebrahim Ameri, Hasan Ghandhari, Hamid Hesarikia, Hamid Reza Rasouli, Hossein Vahidtari, Navid Nabizadeh

Affiliations

  1. Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Shafa Yahyaeian Hospital, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, IR Iran.
  2. Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Shafa Yahyaeian Hospital, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, IR Iran ; Trauma Research Center, Baqiyatallah University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, IR Iran.
  3. Trauma Research Center, Baqiyatallah University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, IR Iran.
  4. Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Rasool Akram Hospital, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, IR Iran.

PMID: 24350172 PMCID: PMC3864399 DOI: 10.5812/traumamon.14663

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Since the time of Paul Harrington numerous implants have been introduced for correction of scoliosis, but none are ideal. Newer devices are very expensive, and in our country some patients cannot afford them.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to compare the results of the Harrington rod (HR) device and the newer Cotrel-Dubousset (CD) device in treatment of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS).

MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective review assessed patients with AIS admitted for spinal curve correction treated with HR (n = 120) and CD devices (n = 138) between October 1988 to April 2001 at the Shafa Yahyaeian Hospital, Tehran, Iran. We extracted information from the patient's file and radiographs before, after and two years post-operation.

RESULTS: The mean age of patients was 16.7 ± 2.5 years. There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups regarding gender, age, curve before surgery, and percentage of flexibility. The mean curvature was 70 ± 20.7 in the HR and 64.81 ± 19.4 in the CD group before surgery (P = 0.09); and the mean curvature was 40 ± 16.3 and 26.58 ± 15.37 in HR and CD groups respectively after surgery (P = 0.156). The mean curvature was 47.2 ± 15.9 in HR and 31.2 ± 15.4 in CD groups at two years follow-up (P = 0.156).

CONCLUSIONS: Results of many studies have shown no significant impairment in long-term quality of life and function in patients treated with Harrington rods. According to previously performed studies and the current study, surgical correction with Harrington rods seem to be comparable with the newer more expensive CD device. Although there is no doubt that the preference is to use newer devices in view of some disadvantages of HR, but this does not preclude using it for patients that cannot afford the newer devices.

Keywords: Harrington; Scoliosis; Surgical Instruments

References

  1. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1991 Nov;73(6):982-9 - PubMed
  2. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2002 Jul 1;27(13):1456-63; discussion 1463-4 - PubMed
  3. J Neurosurg Spine. 2013 May;18(5):535 - PubMed
  4. Indian J Orthop. 2013 May;47(3):219-29 - PubMed
  5. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2013 Jan 15;38(2):E113-9 - PubMed
  6. Acta Orthop Scand. 1968;39(4):456-65 - PubMed
  7. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1998 Jun 15;23(12):1356-61 - PubMed
  8. Orthop Clin North Am. 1988 Apr;19(2):257-67 - PubMed
  9. Eur Spine J. 1995;4(5):280-3 - PubMed
  10. Orthopedics. 1988 Oct;11(10):1403-10 - PubMed
  11. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1983 Sep;8(6):576-84 - PubMed
  12. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2001 Jun 1;26(11):1268-73 - PubMed
  13. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2000 Jun 1;25(11):1360-6 - PubMed
  14. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1998 Aug 15;23(16):1793-5 - PubMed
  15. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2009 Nov 15;34(24):E873-8 - PubMed
  16. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2002 Jan 15;27(2):176-80 - PubMed
  17. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1983 Apr;65(4):447-55 - PubMed
  18. Pediatr Int. 2006 Dec;48(6):591-8 - PubMed
  19. Int Orthop. 2008 Dec;32(6):729-34 - PubMed
  20. Patient Saf Surg. 2013 Jul 03;7(1):21 - PubMed
  21. Med Sci Monit. 2012 Dec;18(12):RA181-7 - PubMed
  22. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1990 May;15(5):424-31 - PubMed
  23. Eur Spine J. 1995;4(1):2-5 - PubMed
  24. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1969 Jan;51(1):165-84 - PubMed
  25. Spine J. 2013 Oct;13(10):1350-8 - PubMed
  26. AORN J. 2009 Sep;90(3):347-76 - PubMed
  27. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1962 Jun;44-A:591-610 - PubMed
  28. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005 Jul;87(7):1534-41 - PubMed
  29. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1995 May 1;20(9):1061-7 - PubMed

Publication Types