High Failure Rates of a Unilateral Posterior Peri-Apical Distraction Device (ApiFix) for Fusionless Treatment of Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis.

BACKGROUND Conventional surgical treatment for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) consists of correction of the spinal deformity with rigid spinal instrumentation and fusion. Less-invasive and fusionless surgery could potentially improve patient outcomes. The purpose of the present study was to evaluate the efficacy of a recently U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved posterior peri-apical self-distracting device (ApiFix) that is designed to gradually correct the deformity without spinal fusion. METHODS In a prospective cohort study of 20 patients with AIS (Risser stage 1-4; Lenke 1 or 5; major curve Cobb angle, 40° to 55°; and Bunnell scoliometer rotation, <15°) were managed with the ApiFix device. Clinical and radiographic performance was assessed. RESULTS Twenty patients with a mean age (and standard deviation) of 14.8 ± 1.4 years were followed for a mean of 3.4 ± 1.0 years. The average major curve was reduced from 45.4° preoperatively to 31.4° at 2 weeks postoperatively and 31.0° at the time of the latest follow-up. The average minor curve measured 31.3° preoperatively, 26.1° at 2 weeks postoperatively, and 24.2° at the time of the latest follow-up. Ten patients had serious complications that required revision surgery, including osteolysis (n = 6), screw and/or rod breakage (n = 2), failure of the ratchet mechanism (n = 1), and pain without explainable cause (n = 1). During revision surgery, metallosis was observed in all patients and cultures showed growth of Cutibacterium acnes in 6 patients. Because of the high failure rate, the study was terminated early. CONCLUSIONS The use of the unilateral peri-apical concave self-distracting ratchet rod initially was associated with promising clinical and radiographic results. However, no distraction was observed and the high rate of serious adverse events within 2 years was considered to be unacceptable for further clinical application of this device in our institution, despite recent FDA approval. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE Therapeutic Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.