Scoliosis and Spinal Disorders 

About: Scoliosis and Spinal Disorders is an academic journal. The journal publishes majorly in the area(s): Scoliosis & Cobb angle. Over the lifetime, 115 publications have been published receiving 1718 citations.

2016 SOSORT guidelines: orthopaedic and rehabilitation treatment of idiopathic scoliosis during growth.

Abstract: The International Scientific Society on Scoliosis Orthopaedic and Rehabilitation Treatment (SOSORT) produced its first guidelines in 2005 and renewed them in 2011. Recently published high-quality clinical trials on the effect of conservative treatment approaches (braces and exercises) for idiopathic scoliosis prompted us to update the last guidelines’ version. The objective was to align the guidelines with the new scientific evidence to assure faster knowledge transfer into clinical practice of conservative treatment for idiopathic scoliosis (CTIS). Physicians, researchers and allied health practitioners working in the area of CTIS were involved in the development of the 2016 guidelines. Multiple literature reviews reviewing the evidence on CTIS (assessment, bracing, physiotherapy, physiotherapeutic scoliosis-specific exercises (PSSE) and other CTIS) were conducted. Documents, recommendations and practical approach flow charts were developed using a Delphi procedure. The process was completed with the Consensus Session held during the first combined SOSORT/IRSSD Meeting held in Banff, Canada, in May 2016. The contents of the new 2016 guidelines include the following: background on idiopathic scoliosis, description of CTIS approaches for various populations with flow-charts for clinical practice, as well as literature reviews and recommendations on assessment, bracing, PSSE and other CTIS. The present guidelines include a total of 68 recommendations divided into following topics: bracing (n = 25), PSSE to prevent scoliosis progression during growth (n = 12), PSSE during brace treatment and surgical therapy (n = 6), other conservative treatments (n = 2), respiratory function and exercises (n = 3), general sport activities (n = 6); and assessment (n = 14). According to the agreed strength and level of evidence rating scale, there were 2 recommendations on bracing and 1 recommendation on PSSE that reached level of recommendation “I” and level of evidence “II”. Three recommendations reached strength of recommendation A based on the level of evidence I (2 for bracing and one for assessment); 39 recommendations reached strength of recommendation B (20 for bracing, 13 for PSSE, and 6 for assessment).The number of paper for each level of evidence for each treatment is shown in Table 8. The 2016 SOSORT guidelines were developed based on the current evidence on CTIS. Over the last 5 years, high-quality evidence has started to emerge, particularly in the areas of efficacy of bracing (one large multicentre trial) and PSSE (three single-centre randomized controlled trials). Several grade A recommendations were presented. Despite the growing high-quality evidence, the heterogeneity of the study protocols limits generalizability of the recommendations. There is a need for standardization of research methods of conservative treatment effectiveness, as recognized by SOSORT and the Scoliosis Research Society (SRS) non-operative management Committee.

Low back pain in older adults: risk factors, management options and future directions

Abstract: Low back pain (LBP) is one of the major disabling health conditions among older adults aged 60 years or older. While most causes of LBP among older adults are non-specific and self-limiting, seniors are prone to develop certain LBP pathologies and/or chronic LBP given their age-related physical and psychosocial changes. Unfortunately, no review has previously summarized/discussed various factors that may affect the effective LBP management among older adults. Accordingly, the objectives of the current narrative review were to comprehensively summarize common causes and risk factors (modifiable and non-modifiable) of developing severe/chronic LBP in older adults, to highlight specific issues in assessing and treating seniors with LBP, and to discuss future research directions. Existing evidence suggests that prevalence rates of severe and chronic LBP increase with older age. As compared to working-age adults, older adults are more likely to develop certain LBP pathologies (e.g., osteoporotic vertebral fractures, tumors, spinal infection, and lumbar spinal stenosis). Importantly, various age-related physical, psychological, and mental changes (e.g., spinal degeneration, comorbidities, physical inactivity, age-related changes in central pain processing, and dementia), as well as multiple risk factors (e.g., genetic, gender, and ethnicity), may affect the prognosis and management of LBP in older adults. Collectively, by understanding the impacts of various factors on the assessment and treatment of older adults with LBP, both clinicians and researchers can work toward the direction of more cost-effective and personalized LBP management for older people.

A reliability and validity study for Scolioscan: a radiation-free scoliosis assessment system using 3D ultrasound imaging

Abstract: Radiographic evaluation for patients with scoliosis using Cobb method is the current gold standard, but radiography has radiation hazards. Several groups have recently demonstrated the feasibility of using 3D ultrasound for the evaluation of scoliosis. Ultrasound imaging is radiation-free, comparatively more accessible, and inexpensive. However, a reliable and valid 3D ultrasound system ready for clinical scoliosis assessment has not yet been reported. Scolioscan is a newly developed system targeted for scoliosis assessment in clinics by using coronal images of spine generated by a 3D ultrasound volume projection imaging method. The aim of this study is to test the reliability of spine deformity measurement of Scolioscan and its validity compared to the gold standard Cobb angle measurements from radiography in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) patients. Prospective study divided into two stages: 1) Investigation of intra- and inter- reliability between two operators for acquiring images using Scolioscan and among three raters for measuring spinal curves from those images; 2) Correlation between the Cobb angle obtained from radiography by a medical doctor and the spine curve angle obtained using Scolioscan (Scolioscan angle). The raters for ultrasound images and the doctors for evaluating radiographic images were mutually blinded. The two stages of tests involved 20 (80 % females, total of 26 angles, age of 16.4 ± 2.7 years, and Cobb angle of 27.6 ± 11.8°) and 49 (69 % female, 73 angles, 15.8 ± 2.7 years and 24.8 ± 9.7°) AIS patients, respectively. Intra-class correlation coefficients (ICC) and Bland-Altman plots and root-mean-square differences (RMS) were employed to determine correlations, which interpreted based on defined criteria. We demonstrated a very good intra-rater and intra-operator reliability for Scolioscan angle measurement with ICC larger than 0.94 and 0.88, respectively. Very good inter-rater and inter-operator reliability was also demonstrated, with both ICC larger than 0.87. For the thoracic deformity measurement, the RMS were 2.5 and 3.3° in the intra- and inter-operator tests, and 1.5 and 3.6° in the intra- and inter-rater tests, respectively. The RMS differences were 3.1, 3.1, 1.6, 3.7° in the intra- and inter-operator and intra- and inter-rater tests, respectively, for the lumbar angle measurement. Moderate to strong correlations (R2 > 0.72) were observed between the Scolioscan angles and Cobb angles for both the thoracic and lumbar regions. It was noted that the Scolioscan angle slightly underestimated the spinal deformity in comparison with Cobb angle, and an overall regression equation y = 1.1797x (R2 = 0.76) could be used to translate the Scolioscan angle (x) to Cobb angle (y) for this group of patients. The RMS difference between Scolioscan angle and Cobb angle was 4.7 and 6.2°, with and without the correlation using the overall regression equation. We showed that Scolioscan is reliable for measuring coronal deformity for patients with AIS and appears promising in screening large numbers of patients, for progress monitoring, and evaluation of treatment outcomes. Due to it being radiation-free and relatively low-cost, Scolioscan has potential to be widely implemented and may contribute to reducing radiation dose during serial monitoring.

Physiotherapy scoliosis-specific exercises: a comprehensive review of seven major schools

Abstract: In recent decades, there has been a call for change among all stakeholders involved in scoliosis management. Parents of children with scoliosis have complained about the so-called “wait and see” approach that far too many doctors use when evaluating children’s scoliosis curves between 10° and 25°. Observation, Physiotherapy Scoliosis Specific Exercises (PSSE) and bracing for idiopathic scoliosis during growth are all therapeutic interventions accepted by the 2011 International Society on Scoliosis Orthopaedic and Rehabilitation Treatment (SOSORT). The standard features of these interventions are: 1) 3-dimension self-correction; 2) Training activities of daily living (ADL); and 3) Stabilization of the corrected posture. PSSE is part of a scoliosis care model that includes scoliosis specific education, scoliosis specific physical therapy exercises, observation or surveillance, psychological support and intervention, bracing and surgery. The model is oriented to the patient. Diagnosis and patient evaluation is essential in this model looking at a patient-oriented decision according to clinical experience, scientific evidence and patient’s preference. Thus, specific exercises are not considered as an alternative to bracing or surgery but as a therapeutic intervention, which can be used alone or in combination with bracing or surgery according to individual indication. In the PSSE model it is recommended that the physical therapist work as part of a multidisciplinary team including the orthopeadic doctor, the orthotist, and the mental health care provider - all are according to the SOSORT guidelines and Scoliosis Research Society (SRS) philosophy. From clinical experiences, PSSE can temporarily stabilize progressive scoliosis curves during the secondary period of progression, more than a year after passing the peak of growth. In non-progressive scoliosis, the regular practice of PSSE could produce a temporary and significant reduction of the Cobb angle. PSSE can also produce benefits in subjects with scoliosis other than reducing the Cobb angle, like improving back asymmetry, based on 3D self-correction and stabilization of a stable 3D corrected posture, as well as the secondary muscle imbalance and related pain. In more severe cases of thoracic scoliosis, it can also improve breathing function. This paper will discuss in detail seven major scoliosis schools and their approaches to PSSE, including their bracing techniques and scientific evidence. The aim of this paper is to understand and learn about the different international treatment methods so that physical therapists can incorporate the best from each into their own practices, and in that way attempt to improve the conservative management of patients with idiopathic scoliosis. These schools are presented in the historical order in which they were developed. They include the Lyon approach from France, the Katharina Schroth Asklepios approach from Germany, the Scientific Exercise Approach to Scoliosis (SEAS) from Italy, the Barcelona Scoliosis Physical Therapy School approach (BSPTS) from Spain, the Dobomed approach from Poland, the Side Shift approach from the United Kingdom, and the Functional Individual Therapy of Scoliosis approach (FITS) from Poland.

Radiation dose of digital radiography (DR) versus micro-dose x-ray (EOS) on patients with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: 2016 SOSORT- IRSSD “John Sevastic Award” Winner in Imaging Research

Abstract: Patients with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) frequently receive x-ray imaging at diagnosis and subsequent follow monitoring. The ionizing radiation exposure has accumulated through their development stage and the effect of radiation to this young vulnerable group of patients is uncertain. To achieve the ALARA (as low as reasonably achievable) concept of radiation dose in medical imaging, a slot-scanning x-ray technique by the EOS system has been adopted and the radiation dose using micro-dose protocol was compared with the standard digital radiography on patients with AIS. Ninety-nine participants with AIS underwent micro-dose EOS and 33 underwent standard digital radiography (DR) for imaging of the whole spine. Entrance-skin dose was measured using thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLD) at three regions (i.e. dorsal sites at the level of sternal notch, nipple line, symphysis pubis). Effective dose and organ dose were calculated by simulation using PCXMC 2.0. Data from two x-ray systems were compared using independent-samples t-test and significance level at 0.05. All TLD measurements were conducted on PA projection only. Image quality was also assessed by two raters using Cobb angle measurement and a set of imaging parameters for optimization purposes. Entrance-skin dose from micro-dose EOS system was 5.9–27.0 times lower at various regions compared with standard DR. The calculated effective dose was 2.6 ± 0.5 (μSv) and 67.5 ± 23.3 (μSv) from micro-dose and standard DR, respectively. The reduction in the micro-dose was approximately 26 times. Organ doses at thyroid, lung and gonad regions were significantly lower in micro-dose (p < 0.001). Data were further compared within the different gender groups. Females received significantly higher (p < 0.001) organ dose at ovaries compared to the testes in males. Patients with AIS received approximately 16–34 times lesser organ dose from micro-dose x-ray as compared with the standard DR. There was no significant difference in overall rating of imaging quality between EOS and DR. Micro-dose protocol provided enough quality to perform consistent measurement on Cobb angle. Entrance-skin dose, effective dose and organ dose were significantly reduced in micro-dose x-ray. The effective dose of a single micro-dose x-ray (2.6 μSv) was less than a day of background radiation. As AIS patients require periodic x-ray follow up for surveillance of curve progression, clinical use of micro-dose x-ray system is beneficial for these young patients to reduce the intake of ionizing radiation.