Also here is Newton making the point I made about whether tethering preserves significantly more ROM than fusion...
https://ryortho.com/breaking/study-t...oliosis-cases/
https://ryortho.com/breaking/study-t...oliosis-cases/
“Despite these challenges, a spinal fusion has been prevented in the majority of cases. However, the ‘true’ benefit of the retained motion relative to what would have likely been an isolated thoracic fusion can certainly be questioned. The differences in global trunk motion appears to be only modestly affected by a thoracic spinal instrumentation and fusion.”
“There is growing interest in fusion-less treatment for scoliosis. Internet sources and social media in my view often paint a picture praising tethering and damning fusion. This is biased and inaccurate. Patients need clear and balanced information on the pros and cons of tethering vs. fusion. My hope is this paper will offer some of the facts required to inform such discussions.”
“In my view, tethering is reasonable for the growing patient with a scoliosis beyond 45 degrees. They need to understand an attempt to avoid fusion with a growth modulating tether will be less reliable and have a higher revision rate than posterior spinal fusion. Some will value motion over the absolute correction or the greater chance of revision. Others will value the most reliable approach at the expense of a modest loss of motion. Shared decision making is mandatory.”
“There is growing interest in fusion-less treatment for scoliosis. Internet sources and social media in my view often paint a picture praising tethering and damning fusion. This is biased and inaccurate. Patients need clear and balanced information on the pros and cons of tethering vs. fusion. My hope is this paper will offer some of the facts required to inform such discussions.”
“In my view, tethering is reasonable for the growing patient with a scoliosis beyond 45 degrees. They need to understand an attempt to avoid fusion with a growth modulating tether will be less reliable and have a higher revision rate than posterior spinal fusion. Some will value motion over the absolute correction or the greater chance of revision. Others will value the most reliable approach at the expense of a modest loss of motion. Shared decision making is mandatory.”
Comment