The impact of patient self assessment of deformity on HRQL in adults with scoliosis

Background: Body image and HRQL are significant issues for patients with scoliosis due to cosmetic deformity, physical and psychological symptoms, and treatment factors. A selective review of scoliosis literature revealed that self report measures of body image and HRQL share unreliable correlations with radiographic measures and clinician recommendations for surgery. However, current body image and HRQL measures do not indicate which aspects of scoliosis deformity are the most distressing for patients. The WRVAS is an instrument designed to evaluate patient self assessment of deformity, and may show some promise in identifying aspects of deformity most troubling to patients. Previous research on adolescents with scoliosis supports the use of the WRVAS as a clinical tool, as the instrument shares strong correlations with radiographic measures and quality of life instruments. There has been limited use of this instrument on adult populations. Methods: The WRVAS and the SF-36v2, a HRQL measure, were administered to 71 adults with scoliosis, along with a form to report age and gender. Preliminary validation analyses were performed on the WRVAS (floor and ceiling effects, internal consistency and collinearity, correlations with the SF-36v2, and multiple regression with the WRVAS total score as the predictor, and SF-36v2 scores as outcomes). Results: The psychometric properties of the WRVAS were acceptable. Older participants perceived their deformities as more severe than younger participants. More severe deformities were associated with lower scores on the Physical Component Summary Score of the SF-36v2. Total WRVAS score also predicted Physical Component Summary scores. Conclusion: The results of the current study indicate that the WRVAS is a reliable tool to use with adult patients, and that patient self assessment of deformity shared a relationship with physical rather than psychological aspects of HRQL. The current and previous studies concur that revision of the WRVAS is necessary to more accurately represent the diversity of scoliosis deformities. Ability to identify disturbing aspects of deformity could potentially be improved by evaluating each WRVAS items against indicators of pain, physical/psychosocial function, and self image from previous measures such as the SRS, SF-36 or BSSQ-deformity

Why do we treat adolescent idiopathic scoliosis? What we want to obtain and to avoid for our patients. SOSORT 2005 Consensus paper

BACKGROUND: Medicine is a scientific art: once science is not clear, choices are made according to individual and collective beliefs that should be better understood. This is particularly true in a field like adolescent idiopathic scoliosis, where currently does not exist definitive scientific evidence on the efficacy either of conservative or of surgical treatments. AIM OF THE STUDY: To verify the philosophical choices on the final outcome of a group of people believing and engaged in a conservative treatment of idiopathic scoliosis. METHODS: We performed a multifaceted study that included a bibliometric analysis, a questionnaire, and a careful Consensus reaching procedure between experts in the conservative treatment of scoliosis (SOSORT members). RESULTS: The Consensus reaching procedure has shown to be useful: answers changed in a statistically significant way, and 9 new outcome criteria were included. The most important final outcomes were considered Aesthetics (100%), Quality of life and Disability (more than 90%), while more than 80% of preferences went to Back Pain, Psychological well-being, Progression in adulthood, Breathing function, Scoliosis Cobb degrees (radiographic lateral flexion), Needs of further treatments in adulthood. DISCUSSION: In the literature prevail outcome criteria driven by the contingent treatment needs or the possibility to have measurement systems (even if it seems that usual clinical and radiographic methods are given much more importance than more complex Disability or Quality of Life instruments). SOSORT members give importance to a wide range of outcome criteria, in which clinical and radiographic issues have the lowest importance. CONCLUSION: We treat our patients for what they need for their future (Breathing function, Needs of further treatments in adulthood, Progression in adulthood), and their present too (Aesthetics, Disability, Quality of life). Technical matters, such as rib hump or radiographic lateral alignment and rotation, but not lateral flexion, are secondary outcomes and only instrumental to previously reported primary outcomes. We advocate a multidimensional, comprehensive evaluation of scoliosis patients, to gather all necessary data for a complete therapeutic approach, that goes beyond x-rays to reach the person and the family

Right adolescent idiopathic thoracic curve (Lenke 1 A and B): does cost of instrumentation and implant density improve radiographic and cosmetic parameters?

In adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) there has been a shift towards increasing the number of implants and pedicle screws, which has not been proven to improve cosmetic correction. To evaluate if increasing cost of instrumentation correlates with cosmetic correction using clinical photographs. 58 Lenke 1A and B cases from a multicenter AIS database with at least 3 months follow-up of clinical photographs were used for analysis. Cosmetic parameters on PA and forward bending photographs included angular measurements of trunk shift, shoulder balance, rib hump, and ratio measurements of waist line asymmetry. Pre-op and follow-up X-rays were measured for coronal and sagittal deformity parameters. Cost density was calculated by dividing the total cost of instrumentation by the number of vertebrae being fused. Linear regression and spearman’s correlation were used to correlate cost density to X-ray and photo outcomes. Three independent observers verified radiographic and cosmetic parameters for inter/interobserver variability analysis. Average pre-op Cobb angle and instrumented correction were 54° (SD 12.5) and 59% (SD 25) respectively. The average number of vertebrae fused was 10 (SD 1.9). The total cost of spinal instrumentation ranged from $6,769 to$21,274 (Mean $12,662, SD$3,858). There was a weak positive and statistically significant correlation between Cobb angle correction and cost density (r = 0.33, p = 0.01), and no correlation between Cobb angle correction of the uninstrumented lumbar spine and cost density (r = 0.15, p = 0.26). There was no significant correlation between all sagittal X-ray measurements or any of the photo parameters and cost density. There was good to excellent inter/intraobserver variability of all photographic parameters based on the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC 0.74–0.98). Our method used to measure cosmesis had good to excellent inter/intraobserver variability, and may be an effective tool to objectively assess cosmesis from photographs. Since increasing cost density only improves mildly the Cobb angle correction of the main thoracic curve and not the correction of the uninstrumented spine or any of the cosmetic parameters, one should consider the cost of increasing implant density in Lenke 1A and B curves. In the area of rationalization of health care expenses, this study demonstrates that increasing the number of implants does not improve any relevant cosmetic or radiographic outcomes