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

2011 SOSORT guidelines: Orthopaedic and Rehabilitation treatment of idiopathic scoliosis during growth

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The International Scientific Society on Scoliosis Orthopaedic and Rehabilitation Treatment (SOSORT), that produced its first Guidelines in 2005, felt the need to revise them and increase their scientific quality. The aim is to offer to all professionals and their patients an evidence-based updated review of the actual evidence on conservative treatment of idiopathic scoliosis (CTIS).</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>All types of professionals (specialty physicians, and allied health professionals) engaged in CTIS have been involved together with a methodologist and a patient representative. A review of all the relevant literature and of the existing Guidelines have been performed. Documents, recommendations, and practical approach flow charts have been developed according to a Delphi procedure. A methodological and practical review has been made, and a final Consensus Session was held during the 2011 Barcelona SOSORT Meeting.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The contents of the document are: methodology; generalities on idiopathic scoliosis; approach to CTIS in different patients, with practical flow-charts; literature review and recommendations on assessment, bracing, physiotherapy, Physiotherapeutic Specific Exercises (PSE) and other CTIS. Sixty-five recommendations have been given, divided in the following topics: Bracing (20 recommendations), PSE to prevent scoliosis progression during growth (8), PSE during brace treatment and surgical therapy (5), Other conservative treatments (3), Respiratory function and exercises (3), Sports activities (6), Assessment (20). No recommendations reached a Strength of Evidence level I; 2 were level II; 7 level III; and 20 level IV; through the Consensus procedure 26 reached level V and 10 level VI. The Strength of Recommendations was Grade A for 13, B for 49 and C for 3; none had grade D.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>These Guidelines have been a big effort of SOSORT to paint the actual situation of CTIS, starting from the evidence, and filling all the gray areas using a scientific method. According to results, it is possible to understand the lack of research in general on CTIS. SOSORT invites researchers to join, and clinicians to develop good research strategies to allow in the future to support or refute these recommendations according to new and stronger evidence.</p

Inter- and intraobserver reliability assessment of the Cobb angle: manual versus digital measurement tools

The objective of this study is to determine the intraobserver and interobserver reliability of end vertebra definition and Cobb angle measurement using printed and digital radiographs of 48 patients with scoliosis. The Cobb angle and the end vertebra were assessed by six observers in 48 patients with scoliosis using printed and digital radiographs. Definition of end vertebra and measurement of the Cobb angle was repeated three times with a 3 week interval. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) were used to determine the interobserver and intraobserver reliabilities. 95% prediction limits for the errors in measurements are provided. For the Cobb angle a mean ICC of 0.97 was determined for intra- and interobserver reliability measurement of the printed radiographs. For the electronic radiographs a mean ICC value of 0.93 was determined for interobserver reliability and a mean ICC value of 0.96 for intraobserver reliability. Intraobserver ICC for definition of end vertebrae was 0.8 for both methods. Interobserver ICC was 0.83 for the manual and 0.74 in the digital method. One pitfall in angle measurement implies the Cobb method itself which measures in two dimensions. Until we develop a proper tri-dimensional measuring system an error is introduced. For the Cobb angle measurement the definition of end vertebrae introduces the main source of error. Digital radiography does not improve the measurement accuracy

Observer reliability between juvenile and adolescent idiopathic scoliosis in measurement of stable Cobb’s angle

It is a measurement of Cobb’s angles between adolescent (AIS) and juvenile (JIS) idiopathic scoliosis who had stable curves (variation <5 degrees) in more than three visits. Main objective of this paper is to measure inter- and intra-observer reliability of measurements between AIS and JIS who had stable curves in regular follow-up. Twenty-nine JIS and 44 AIS patients who had stable curves without bracing were identified using PACS system. Two observers independently measured Cobb’s angle twice on first, during follow-up and final radiogram using computer-based digital radiogram. Both observers were given pre-decided level of upper and lower end plates. Inter- and intra-observer reliability of the measurement was calculated using Pearson correlation-coefficient test between JIS and AIS group. There was no significant difference in Cobb’s angle in all measurements by both observers either in JIS (p = 0.756, range 0.706–0.815; ANOVA) or AIS (p = 0.871, range 0.795–0.929; ANOVA) group which suggested that there is no significant difference in Cobb’s angle in repeated measurements. Intra-observer reliability for JIS (r = 0.600, range 0.521–0.751; Pearson test) was less than AIS (r = 0.969, range 0.943–0.984; Pearson test); and similarly, inter-observer reliability for JIS (r = 0.547, Pearson test) was also less than AIS (r = 0.961, Pearson test) which indicates that Cobb’s angle measurement is less reliable in patients who have juvenile idiopathic scoliosis. Using the identical condition for measurements in both the groups, we could find only one reason for less reliability in JIS group and that is poor demarcation of the vertebral end-plates in this group. This poor inter- and intra-observer reliability in JIS due to ill-defined endplates can be reduced by measuring all previous curves along with latest curves at the same time during the follow-up of patients with JIS to decide about the progression of curves and treatment options