Advertisement

European Spine Journal

, Volume 18, Issue 1, pp 45–51 | Cite as

Discrepancy between radiographic shoulder balance and cosmetic shoulder balance in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis patients with double thoracic curve

  • Xu-sheng Qiu
  • Wei-wei Ma
  • Wei-guo Li
  • Bin Wang
  • Yang Yu
  • Ze-zhang Zhu
  • Bang-ping Qian
  • Feng Zhu
  • Xu Sun
  • Bobby K. W. Ng
  • Jack C. Y. Cheng
  • Yong QiuEmail author
Original Article

Abstract

Shoulder balance is one of the key components to the body deformity in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) patients with double thoracic curve and shoulder cosmesis plays an important role in patients’ satisfaction of surgical outcomes. Up to now, only radiographic parameters were used to evaluate the shoulder balance in literatures; no corresponding cosmetic parameters have been developed to evaluate the cosmetic shoulder balance. Meanwhile, we often confronted that perfect radiographic shoulder balance was achieved, but the patients complained about the residual cosmetic deformity. This phenomenon implied that discrepancy may exist between radiographic shoulder balance and cosmetic shoulder balance. The present study was carried out to investigate the correlation between radiographic and clinical cosmetic shoulder balance in AIS patients with double thoracic curve. Thirty-four AIS patients were recruited for this study. All the patients had a double thoracic curve. Six cosmetic parameters––inner shoulder height (SHi), outer shoulder height (SHo), shoulder area index 1 (SAI1), shoulder area index 2 (SAI2), shoulder angle (α1) and axilla angle (α2) were developed and measured on the standing photographs. Also, seven radiographic parameters––T1 tilting (T1), first rib angle (FRA), clavicle angle (CA), coracoid process height (CPH), clavicle-rib cage intersection (CRCI), first rib–clavicle height (FRCH), trapezius length (TL) were measured on the standing posterior–anterior radiographs. Correlation analysis was made between cosmetic parameters and radiographic parameters. SHi was found to be significantly correlated with T1, FRA, CA, CPH, CRCI (P < 0.05), among which FRA had the highest correlation coefficient. SHo was found to be significantly correlated with T1, FRA, CA, CPH, CRCI, FRCH (P < 0.05), among which CRCI had the highest correlation coefficient. However, none of the correlation coefficient was greater than 0.8. The correlation coefficients between radiographic parameters and SAI1, SAI2, α1, α2 were also below 0.8 that were similar with SH. The results indicated that radiographic parameters could only partially reflect the shoulder cosmetic appearances. However, none of the existing parameters can accurately reflect the shoulder cosmetic appearance. As cosmesis is critical important to patients’ satisfaction, spine surgeons should pay more attention to the cosmetic shoulder balance rather than radiographic shoulder balance.

Keywords

Adolescent idiopathic scoliosis Double thoracic curve Radiographic Cosmesis 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by National Natural Science Foundation (30672131), China.

References

  1. 1.
    Asher M, Min Lai S, Burton D, Manna B (2003) The reliability and concurrent validity of the scoliosis research society-22 patient questionnaire for idiopathic scoliosis. Spine 28:63–69PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Asher MA, Lai SM, Glattes RC, Burton DC, Alanay A, Bago J (2006) Refinement of the SRS-22 health-related quality of life questionnaire function domain. Spine 31:593–597PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bago J, Carrera L, March B, Villanueva C (1996) Four radiological measures to estimate shoulder balance in scoliosis. J Pediatr Orthop B 5:31–34PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bengtsson G, Fallstrom K, Jansson B, Nachemson A (1974) A psychological and psychiatric investigation of the adjustment of female scoliosis patients. Acta Psychiatr Scand 50:50–59PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bridwell KH (1999) Surgical treatment of idiopathic adolescent scoliosis. Spine 24:2607–2616PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Buchanan R, Birch JG, Morton AA, Browne RH (2003) Do you see what I see? Looking at scoliosis surgical outcomes through orthopedists’ eyes. Spine 28:2700–2704 discussion 2705PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cochran T, Irstam L, Nachemson A (1983) Long-term anatomic and functional changes in patients with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis treated by Harrington rod fusion. Spine 8:576–584PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Drummond D, Ranallo F, Lonstein J, Brooks HL, Cameron J (1983) Radiation hazards in scoliosis management. Spine 8:741–748PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Edgar MA, Mehta MH (1988) Long-term follow-up of fused and unfused idiopathic scoliosis. J Bone Joint Surg Br 70:712–716PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Haher TR, Gorup JM, Shin TM, Homel P, Merola AA, Grogan DP, Pugh L, Lowe TG, Murray M (1999) Results of the scoliosis research society instrument for evaluation of surgical outcome in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. A multicenter study of 244 patients. Spine 24:1435–1440PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Haher TR, Merola A, Zipnick RI, Gorup J, Mannor D, Orchowski J (1995) Meta-analysis of surgical outcome in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. A 35-year English literature review of 11, 000 patients. Spine 20:1575–1584PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Iwahara T, Imai M, Atsuta Y (1998) Quantification of cosmesis for patients affected by adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Eur Spine J 7:12–15PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    King HA, Moe JH, Bradford DS, Winter RB (1983) The selection of fusion levels in thoracic idiopathic scoliosis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 65:1302–1313PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kuklo TR, Lenke LG, Graham EJ, Won DS, Sweet FA, Blanke KM, Bridwell KH (2002) Correlation of radiographic, clinical, and patient assessment of shoulder balance following fusion versus nonfusion of the proximal thoracic curve in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Spine 27:2013–2020PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lee CK, Denis F, Winter RB, Lonstein JE (1993) Analysis of the upper thoracic curve in surgically treated idiopathic scoliosis. A new concept of the double thoracic curve pattern. Spine 18:1599–1608PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lenke LG, Betz RR, Harms J, Bridwell KH, Clements DH, Lowe TG, Blanke K (2001) Adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: a new classification to determine extent of spinal arthrodesis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 83-A:1169–1181PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lenke LG, Bridwell KH, O’Brien MF, Baldus C, Blanke K (1994) Recognition and treatment of the proximal thoracic curve in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis treated with Cotrel-Dubousset instrumentation. Spine 19:1589–1597PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lonstein JE (2006) Scoliosis: surgical versus nonsurgical treatment. Clin Orthop Relat Res 443:248–259PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Raso VJ, Lou E, Hill DL, Mahood JK, Moreau MJ, Durdle NG (1998) Trunk distortion in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. J Pediatr Orthop 18:222–226PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Remes V, Helenius I, Schlenzka D, Yrjonen T, Ylikoski M, Poussa M (2004) Cotrel-Dubousset (CD) or Universal Spine System (USS) instrumentation in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS): comparison of midterm clinical, functional, and radiologic outcomes. Spine 29:2024–2030PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Sanders JO, Polly DW Jr, Cats-Baril W, Jones J, Lenke LG, O’Brien MF, Stephens Richards B, Sucato DJ (2003) Analysis of patient and parent assessment of deformity in idiopathic scoliosis using the Walter Reed visual assessment scale. Spine 28:2158–2163PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Smith PL, Donaldson S, Hedden D, Alman B, Howard A, Stephens D, Wright JG (2006) Parents’ and patients’ perceptions of postoperative appearance in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Spine 31:2367–2374PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Suk SI, Kim WJ, Lee CS, Lee SM, Kim JH, Chung ER, Lee JH (2000) Indications of proximal thoracic curve fusion in thoracic adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: recognition and treatment of double thoracic curve pattern in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis treated with segmental instrumentation. Spine 25:2342–2349PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Theologis TN, Jefferson RJ, Simpson AH, Turner-Smith AR, Fairbank JC (1993) Quantifying the cosmetic defect of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Spine 18:909–912PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Winter RB (1989) The idiopathic double thoracic curve pattern. Its recognition and surgical management. Spine 14:1287–1292PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Xu-sheng Qiu
    • 1
  • Wei-wei Ma
    • 1
  • Wei-guo Li
    • 1
  • Bin Wang
    • 1
  • Yang Yu
    • 1
  • Ze-zhang Zhu
    • 1
  • Bang-ping Qian
    • 1
  • Feng Zhu
    • 1
  • Xu Sun
    • 1
  • Bobby K. W. Ng
    • 2
    • 3
  • Jack C. Y. Cheng
    • 2
    • 3
  • Yong Qiu
    • 1
    • 3
    Email author
  1. 1.Spine Surgery, Drum Tower HospitalNanjing University Medical SchoolNanjingChina
  2. 2.Department of Orthopaedics and TraumatologyThe Chinese University of Hong KongHong KongChina
  3. 3.The Joint Scoliosis Research Center of Nanjing University and the Chinese University of Hong KongHong KongChina

Personalised recommendations