Surgical outcomes and complication rates in severe scoliosis: a systematic review

Background: Correcting severe scoliosis is challenging due to curve rigidity and risks to cardiopulmonary and neurologic function. Osteotomy techniques offer greater correction but carry higher complication rates, while non-osteotomy methods may be safer but less effective. This systematic review compares outcomes between osteotomy and non-osteotomy approaches in treating severe idiopathic scoliosis. Methods: A systematic search was conducted in PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library using MeSH terms related to “idiopathic adolescent scoliosis”, “AIS”, “severe scoliosis”, and “surgical outcome”. The review followed PRISMA guidelines. Results: An initial search yielded 565 studies, of which 23 studies (n = 932 patients) met the inclusion criteria. The Vertebral Column Resection (VCR) group achieved the greatest spinal correction, with a mean Cobb angle of 106.7 ± 9.7° and a correction rate of 62.1%, but also had the highest complication rate at 24%. Non-osteotomy methods provided similar correction (107.0 ± 9.1°, 61.5%) with a slightly lower complication rate of 19.6%. The Ponte osteotomy group had the lowest complication rate (4%) with a moderate level of correction (107.4 ± 10.5°, 60.3%). In terms of functional outcomes, the non-osteotomy group reported the highest SRS-22r scores, averaging 4.3. Conclusion: VCR offers the most significant curve correction, but with a higher complication rate. Ponte osteotomy provides a safer alternative with acceptable clinical outcomes. In contrast, non-osteotomy techniques strike a balance between correction and risk, with favorable functional results.

Publication Details

Journal
Springer Link (Chiba Institute of Technology)
Published
2025-09-19
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1051/sicotj/2025050/pdf
Primary Topic
Scoliosis diagnosis and treatment
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Surgical outcomes and complication rates in severe scoliosis: a systematic review

Springer Link (Chiba Institute of Technology)
Scoliosis diagnosis and treatment
article

Surgical outcomes and complication rates in severe scoliosis: a systematic review

article en

Abstract

Background: Correcting severe scoliosis is challenging due to curve rigidity and risks to cardiopulmonary and neurologic function. Osteotomy techniques offer greater correction but carry higher complication rates, while non-osteotomy methods may be safer but less effective. This systematic review compares outcomes between osteotomy and non-osteotomy approaches in treating severe idiopathic scoliosis. Methods: A systematic search was conducted in PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library using MeSH terms related to “idiopathic adolescent scoliosis”, “AIS”, “severe scoliosis”, and “surgical outcome”. The review followed PRISMA guidelines. Results: An initial search yielded 565 studies, of which 23 studies (n = 932 patients) met the inclusion criteria. The Vertebral Column Resection (VCR) group achieved the greatest spinal correction, with a mean Cobb angle of 106.7 ± 9.7° and a correction rate of 62.1%, but also had the highest complication rate at 24%. Non-osteotomy methods provided similar correction (107.0 ± 9.1°, 61.5%) with a slightly lower complication rate of 19.6%. The Ponte osteotomy group had the lowest complication rate (4%) with a moderate level of correction (107.4 ± 10.5°, 60.3%). In terms of functional outcomes, the non-osteotomy group reported the highest SRS-22r scores, averaging 4.3. Conclusion: VCR offers the most significant curve correction, but with a higher complication rate. Ponte osteotomy provides a safer alternative with acceptable clinical outcomes. In contrast, non-osteotomy techniques strike a balance between correction and risk, with favorable functional results.

Springer Link (Chiba Institute of Technology)
Openalex Percentile: Top 30%
Scoliosis diagnosis and treatment
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.