Advertisement

European Spine Journal

, Volume 5, Issue 2, pp 79–84 | Cite as

Threshold values for supine and standing Cobb angles and rib hump measurements: prognostic factors for scoliosis

  • G. Duval-Beaupere
Original Article

Abstract

Seven parameters recorded at the first clinical examination of 326 growing scoliotic patients were correlated with the speed of progression of the scoliotic curve during a natural history survey period. The parameters were: age; bone age (according to Greulich and Pyle); pubertal and Risser stage; curve shape; rib hump, measured in forward bending in a sitting patient and supine and standing radiographic Cobb angles of the scoliotic curve. The speed of progression of the scoliotic curve was expressed as the annual increase in Cobb angle. It was quantified graphically after plotting the measurements taken from all the radiographic examinations made during the survey. The survey period ranged from 6 months to several years, depending on the rate of progression. It was 6 months only if the scoliotic curve demonstrated worsening of more than 3° at two successive examinations performed at least 3 months apart. The authors aimed to identify the minimum values of curve angle and rib hump, identified at first examination in 95–100% of patients whose parameters at follow-up were above these values (supine angle: 17°; standing angle: 24°; rib hump: 11 mm), therefore demonstrating curve worsening. Then, they analysed how the other parameters such as age, bone age, state of maturation and curve shape influenced these threshold values of rib hump and supine and standing angles. The authors present the threshold values for the whole sample according to the sexual state of maturation and also for each curve shape. They demonstrate that a combination of states of maturation, several measures of the scoliotic curve and curve shape provides the best basis for individual prognosis.

Key words

Scoliosis Curve progression Prognostic Threshold Maturation 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Bourdon R, Beaupere G (1956) Etude critique de leexamen radiologique du rachis poliomyèlitique. J Radiol Electroradiol 37:985–989Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bunnel WP (1988) Natural history of idiopathic scoliosis. Clin Orthop 229:20–25Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Collis DK, Ponseti IV (1969) Long term follow-up of patients with idiopathic scoliosis not treated chirurgically. J Bone Joint Surg Am 51:425–445Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cotrel Y (1959) Les types de scolioses. J Kinésither 7:2–12Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Duriez J (1969) Evolution de la scoliose idiopathique chez l'adulte. Acta Orthop Belg 33:457–550Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Duval-Beaupere G (1970) Les repères de maturation dans la surveillance des scolioses. Rev Chir Orthop 56:59–76Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Duval-Beaupere G (1971) Pathogenic relationship between scoliosis and growth. In: Zorab PA (ed) Scoliosis and growth. Churchill Livingstone, London, pp 58–64Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Duval-Beaupere G (1992) Rib hump and supine angle as prognostic factors for mild scoliosis. Spine 17:103–107Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Duval-Beaupere G, Lamireau TH (1985) Scoliosis at less than 30°: property of the evolutivity (risk of progression). Spine 10:421–424Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Duval-Beaupere G, Dubousset J, Queneau P (1970) Pour une théorie unique de l'évolution des scolioses. Presse Méd 78:1141–1146Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Duval-Beaupere G, Taussig G, Mouilleseaux B, Pries P, Mounier C (1989) Scolioses idiopathiques, histoire naturelle et facteurs de prognostic. In: Proceedings of the annual meeting of the French Groupe d'Etude de la Scoliose, BerckGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Duval-Beaupere G, Taussig G, Mouilleseaux B, Pries P, Mounier C (1992) Prognostic factors for idiopathic scoliosis. In: Dansereau J (ed) International symposium on 3D scoliotic deformities. Fischer, Stuttgart New York, pp 211–216Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lonstein JE, Carlson JM (1984) The prediction of curve progression in untreated idiopathic scoliosis during growth. J Bone Joint Surg [Am] 66:1061–1071Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Rogala EJ, Drummond DS, Gurr J (1978) Scoliosis: Incidence and natural history. J Bone Joint Surg [Am] 60:173–176Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Stagnara P (1953) Scolioses évolutives en période de croissance. Aspects cliniques et radiologiques. Propositions thérapeutiques. Rev Chir Orthop 39:378–449Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Terver S, Kleiman R, Bleck EE (1980) Growth landmarks and the evolution of scoliosis: a review of pertinent studies on their usefulness. Dev Med Child Neurol 22:675–684Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Weinstein SI, Ponseti IV (1983) Curve progression in idiopathic scoliosis. J Bone Joint Surg [Am] 65:447–455Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Willner S (1984) Development of trunk asymmetries and structural scoliosis in prepubertal school children in Malmö: Follow up study of children 10–14 years of age. J Pediatr Orthop 4:452–455Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Yamaguchi Y, Yamaguchi T, Asaka Y (1988) Prediction of curve progression in idiopathic scoliosis based on initial radiograms: a proposal of an equation. Spine 13:1258–1261Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • G. Duval-Beaupere
    • 1
  1. 1.Unité 215 de l'INSERMHôpital R PoincaréGarchesFrance

Personalised recommendations