Skip to search boxSkip to navigationSkip to main content

Efficacy and safety of the coplanar technique compared to conventional derotation techniques for spinal deformity surgery: a health technology assessment in children adolescents and adults

Original title: Eficacia y seguridad de la técnica coplanar en comparación con las técnicas de derotación convencional para la corrección quirúrgica de deformidades de la columna vertebral: una evaluación de tecnología sanitaria en niños, jóvenes y adultos
  • ,
  • José A. Zavala-Loayza
    ,
  • Carlos J. Toro-Huamanchumo
    ,
  • Maribel M. Castro-Reyes
    ,
  • Verónica Peralta
    ,
  • Rodrigo Alejandro-Salinas
  • ,
  • Instituto de Evaluación de Tecnologías en Salud e Investigación, EsSalud
    ,
  • Universidad San Ignacio de Loyola
    ,
  • Universidad Peruana de Ciencias Aplicadas
    ,
  • Universidad de San Martin de Porres
    ,
  • Sociedad Científica de Estudiantes de Medicina UPC (SOCIEMUPC)
Research Output:
Contribution to journal
Article
Peer-review

Publication Information

Output type

Research Output:
Contribution to journal
Article
Peer-review

Original language

Spanish

Journal (Volume, Issue Number)

Revista del Cuerpo Medico Hospital Nacional Almanzor Aguinaga Asenjo (Volume 15)

Publication milestones

  • Published - 01/09/2022

Publication status

Published - 01/09/2022

ISSN

2225-5109

Publication IDs

  • Scopus: 85141319010

Abstract

A health technology assessment (HTA) was carried out to critically analyze the evidence on the efficacy and safety of the surgical correction of spinal deformities using the coplanar technique, compared to the conventional derotation techniques, in children, adolescents and adults. A systematic search of the literature was carried out in the PubMed, Cochrane Library and LILACS databases. In addition, a manual search was carried out in the reference lists of the included studies, on Google and on the websites of specialized societies and groups that produce clinical practice guidelines (CPG) and HTA. In addition, we searched ClinicalTrials.gov and the International Clinical Trial Registry Platform (ICTRP) for clinical trial records in progress or not completed. Five documents were selected for evaluation, including two CPG, a randomized clinical trial, and two observational studies. After a critical evaluation of the evidence, it was concluded that both techniques showed a similar efficacy profile in terms of relevant outcomes such as correction of curvatures in the coronal and sagittal planes, quality of life and surgical time. Likewise, the rates of screw malposition, complications and volume of blood loss did not show significant differences between both techniques. However, the profile of opportunity cost of the systems that allow the application of the coplanar technique is not favorable in the context of the evaluation, due to its high cost concerning conventional systems.