0
Scientific Articles   |    
Are Surgeons' Preferences for Instrumentation Related to Patient Outcomes?A Randomized Clinical Trial of Two Implants for Idiopathic Scoliosis
James G. Wright, MD, MPH1; Sandra Donaldson, BA2; Andrew Howard, MD, MSc2; Derek Stephens, MSc3; Benjamin Alman, MD2; Douglas Hedden, MD4
1 Orthopaedic Surgery, The Hospital for Sick Children, 1254-555 University Avenue, Toronto, ON M5G 1X8, Canada. E-mail address: james.wright@sickkids.ca
2 Orthopaedic Surgery, The Hospital for Sick Children, S107-555 University Avenue, Toronto, ON M5G 1X8, Canada. E-mail address for S. Donaldson: sandra.donaldson@sickkids.ca E-mail address for A. Howard: andrew.howard@sickkids.ca. E-mail address for B. Alman: benjamin.alman@sickkids.ca
3 Population Health Sciences, The Hospital for Sick Children, 414-123 Edward Street, Toronto, ON M5G 1E2, Canada. E-mail address: derek.stephens@sickkids.ca
4 Division of Paediatric Surgery, Stollery Children's Hospital, 8440-112 Street N.W., Edmonton, AL T6G 2B7, Canada. E-mail address: douglashedden@cha.ab.ca
View Disclosures and Other Information
Disclosure: In support of their research for or preparation of this work, one or more of the authors received, in any one year, outside funding or grants in excess of $10,000 from a Canadian Institutes Health Research Industrial Partnership with DePuy AcroMed-Johnson and Johnson Medical Products and Synthes, Canada. Neither they nor a member of their immediate families received payments or other benefits or a commitment or agreement to provide such benefits from a commercial entity. No commercial entity paid or directed, or agreed to pay or direct, any benefits to any research fund, foundation, division, center, clinical practice, or other charitable or nonprofit organization with which the authors, or a member of their immediate families, are affiliated or associated.
Investigation performed at The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, Ontario, Canada

The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Inc.
J Bone Joint Surg Am, 2007 Dec 01;89(12):2684-2693. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.F.00720
5 Recommendations (Recommend) | 3 Comments | Saved by 3 Users Save Case

Abstract

Background: Although many techniques for the surgical treatment of scoliosis have been described, we are not aware of any randomized trials that have compared implant systems. The relationship between surgeons' preferences for implants and patient outcomes is unknown. The purpose of the present study was to compare quality of life and curve correction associated with use of the Moss Miami system and the Universal Spine System for spinal fusion in patients with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis.

Methods: The present study was a double-blind, randomized clinical trial. All adolescent patients with idiopathic scoliosis who were scheduled for posterior instrumentation and arthrodesis with or without anterior release were screened for eligibility. Patients were randomly allocated to treatment with either the Moss Miami system or the Universal Spine System. The primary outcome measure for this trial was Quality of Life Profile for Spinal Disorders.

Results: Of the 129 subjects who were enrolled in the trial, sixty (95%) of sixty-three from the Universal Spine System group and sixty (91%) of sixty-six from the Moss Miami group were included in the final analysis. Two years postoperatively, the total Quality of Life score did not differ by the clinically important value of 5.5 between the two groups (difference, 1.07; 95% confidence interval, -3.67 to 5.82; p = 0.66). The percentage of Cobb angle correction was not significantly different for thoracic curves (55.1% ± 18.3% for the Moss Miami system group, compared with 54.1% ± 18.7% for the Universal Spine System group) (difference, -1%; 95% confidence interval, -7% to 5%; p = 0.77) or lumbar curves (45.4% ± 24.6% for the Moss Miami system group, compared with 41.9% ± 26.8% for the Universal Spine System group) (difference, -4%; 95% confidence interval, -16% to 11%; p = 0.57). Although surgeons were more satisfied with the Universal Spine System (difference, 42%; 95% confidence interval, 29% to 55%; p < 0.0001), satisfaction ratings were not related to any surgical outcomes.

Conclusions: The Moss Miami system and the Universal Spine Systems provided similar quality of life and curve correction. Surgeon preference may be an unreliable means of selecting implants from the patient outcomes perspective.

Levels of Evidence: Therapeutic Level I. See Instructions to Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Figures in this Article
    Sign In to Your Personal ProfileSign In To Access Full Content
    Not a Subscriber?
    Get online access for 30 days for $35
    New to JBJS?
    Sign up for a full subscription to both the print and online editions
    Register for a FREE limited account to get full access to all CME activities, to comment on public articles, or to sign up for alerts.
    Register for a FREE limited account to get full access to all CME activities
    Have a subscription to the print edition?
    Current subscribers to The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery in either the print or quarterly DVD formats receive free online access to JBJS.org.
    Forgot your password?
    Enter your username and email address. We'll send you a reminder to the email address on record.

     
    Forgot your username or need assistance? Please contact customer service at subs@jbjs.org. If your access is provided
    by your institution, please contact you librarian or administrator for username and password information. Institutional
    administrators, to reset your institution's master username or password, please contact subs@jbjs.org

    References

    Accreditation Statement
    These activities have been planned and implemented in accordance with the Essential Areas and policies of the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education (ACCME) through the joint sponsorship of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons and The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Inc. The American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons is accredited by the ACCME to provide continuing medical education for physicians.
    CME Activities Associated with This Article
    Submit a Comment
    Please read the other comments before you post yours. Contributors must reveal any conflict of interest.
    Comments are moderated and will appear on the site at the discretion of JBJS editorial staff.

    * = Required Field
    (if multiple authors, separate names by comma)
    Example: John Doe





    Related Content
    The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery
    JBJS Case Connector
    Topic Collections
    Related Audio and Videos
    Guidelines
    Clinical Trials
    Readers of This Also Read...
    JBJS Jobs
    04/02/2014
    W. Virginia - Charleston Area Medical Center
    02/28/2014
    District of Columbia (DC) - Children's National Medical Center
    12/31/2013
    S. Carolina - Department of Orthopaedic Surgery Medical Univerity of South Carlonina
    12/04/2013
    New York - Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai