European Spine Journal

, Volume 22, Supplement 2, pp 195–202 | Cite as

Outcome instruments to assess scoliosis surgery

  • Juan Bagó
  • Jose Ma Climent
  • Francisco J. S. Pérez-Grueso
  • Ferran Pellisé
Review Article



To review and summarize the current knowledge regarding the outcome measures used to evaluate scoliosis surgery.


Literature review.


Outcome instruments should be tested to ensure that they have adequate metric characteristics: content and construct validity, reliability, and responsiveness. In the evaluation of scoliosis, generic instruments to assess health-related quality of life (HRQL) have been used, such as the SF-36 questionnaire and the EuroQol5D instrument. Nonetheless, it is preferable to use disease-specific instruments for this purpose, such as the SRS-22 Patient Questionnaire and the quality of life profile for spinal deformities (QLPSD). More recently, these generic and disease-specific instruments have been complemented with the use of super-specific instruments; i.e., those assessing a single aspect of the condition or specific populations with the condition. The patients’ perception of their trunk deformity and body image has received particular attention, and several instruments are available to evaluate these aspects, such as the Walter-Reed Visual Assessment Scale (WRVAS), the Spinal Appearance Questionnaire (SAQ), and the Trunk Appearance Perception Scale (TAPS). The impacts of brace use can also be measured with specific scales, including the Bad Sobernheim Stress Questionnaire (BSSQ) and the Brace Questionnaire (BrQ). The available instruments to evaluate the treatment for non-idiopathic scoliosis have not been sufficiently validated and analyzed.


Evaluation of scoliosis treatment should include the patient’s perspective, which can be obtained with the use of patient-reported outcome measures.


Scoliosis Outcome instruments 


  1. 1.
    Greenhalgh J (2009) The applications of PROs in clinical practice: what are they, do they work, and why? Qual Life Res 18:115–123PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Jaeschke R, Guyatt G (1990) How to develop and validate a new quality of life instrument. In: Spilker B (ed) Quality of life assessments in clinical trials. Raven Press, New York, pp 47–57Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    US Department of Health and Human Services. Food and Drug Administration. Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER). Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER). Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH) (2009) Guidance for industry. Patient-reported outcome measures: use in medical product development to support labeling claims [Internet]. Available from
  4. 4.
    Streiner D, Norman G (2008) Health measurement scales: a practical guide to their development and use. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Copay AG, Subach BR, Glassman SD, Polly DW, Schuler TC (2007) Understanding the minimum clinically important difference: a review of concepts and methods. Spine J 7:541–546PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Moskowitz A, Moe JH, Winter RB, Binner H (1980) Long-term follow-up of scoliosis fusion. J Bone Joint Surg Am 62:364–376PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dickson JH, Erwin WD, Rossi D (1990) Harrington instrumentation and arthrodesis for idiopathic scoliosis. A twenty-one-year follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Am 72:678–683PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Goldberg MS, Mayo NE, Poitras B, Scott S, Hanley J (1994) The Ste-Justine Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis Cohort Study. Part II: perception of health, self and body image, and participation in physical activities. Spine 19:1562–1572PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ware J, Sherbourne C (1992) The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care 30:473–483PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Euroqol Group (1990) EuroQol. A new facility for the measurement of health related quality of life. Health Policy 16:199–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Padua R, Ceccarelli E, Aulisa AG, Pitta L, Aulisa L (2002) Outcome of Harrington surgery for idiopathic scoliosis. SF-36 and Roland questionnaires assessment. Stud Health Technol Inform 88:404PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Götze C, Liljenqvist UR, Slomka A, Götze HG, Steinbeck J (2002) Quality of life and back pain: outcome 16.7 years after Harrington instrumentation. Spine 27:1456–1463 (discussion 1463)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Andersen MO, Christensen SB, Thomsen K (2006) Outcome at 10 years after treatment for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Spine 31:350–354PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Takayama K, Nakamura H, Matsuda H (2009) Quality of life in patients treated surgically for scoliosis: longer than sixteen-year follow-up. Spine 34:2179–2184PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Danielsson AJ, Hasserius R, Ohlin A, Nachemson AL (2010) Health-related quality of life in untreated versus brace-treated patients with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: a long-term follow-up. Spine 35:199–205PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Solberg TK, Olsen JA, Ingebrigtsen T, Hofoss D, Nygaard OP (2005) Health-related quality of life assessment by the EuroQol-5D can provide cost-utility data in the field of low-back surgery. Eur Spine J 14:1000–1007PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Tosteson ANA, Tosteson TD, Lurie JD, Abdu W, Herkowitz H, Andersson G et al (2011) Comparative effectiveness evidence from the spine patient outcomes research trial: surgical versus nonoperative care for spinal stenosis, degenerative spondylolisthesis, and intervertebral disc herniation. Spine 36:2061–2068PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Climent JM, Reig A, Sanchez J, Roda C (1995) Construction and validation of a specific quality of life instrument for adolescents with spine deformities. Spine 20:2006–2011PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Howard A, Donaldson S, Hedden D, Stephens D, Alman B, Wright J (2007) Improvement in quality of life following surgery for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Spine 32:2715–2718PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Pham VM, Houlliez A, Carpentier A, Herbaux B, Schill A, Thevenon A (2008) Determination of the influence of the Chêneau brace on quality of life for adolescent with idiopathic scoliosis. Ann Readapt Med Phys 51:3–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Climent JM, Sanchez J (1999) Impact of the type of brace on the quality of life of adolescents with spine deformities. Spine 24:1903–1908PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Haher TR, Gorup JM, Shin TM, Homel P, Merola AA, Grogan DP et al (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
  23. 23.
    Asher MA, Lai SM, 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
  24. 24.
    Asher MA, Lai SM, Burton D, Manna B (2003) Scoliosis research society-22 patient questionnaire: responsiveness to change associated with surgical treatment. Spine 28:70–73PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Asher MA, Lai SM, Burton D, Manna B (2003) Discrimination validity of the scoliosis research society-22 patient questionnaire: relationship to idiopathic scoliosis curve pattern and curve size. Spine 28:74–78PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Bridwell KH, Cats-Baril W, Harrast J, Berven S, Glassman S, Farcy JP et al (2005) The validity of the SRS-22 instrument in an adult spinal deformity population compared with the Oswestry and SF-12: a study of response distribution, concurrent validity, internal consistency, and reliability. Spine 30:455–461PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Climent JM, Bago J, Ey A, Perez-Grueso F, Izquierdo E (2005) Validity of the Spanish version of the Scoliosis Research Society-22 (SRS-22) patient questionnaire. Spine 30:705–709PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    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
  29. 29.
    Bago J, Climent JM, Ey A, Perez-Grueso FJ, Izquierdo E (2004) The Spanish version of the SRS-22 patient questionnaire for idiopathic scoliosis: transcultural adaptation and reliability analysis. Spine 29:1676–1680PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Alanay A, Cil A, Berk H, Acaroglu RE, Yazici M, Akcali O et al (2005) Reliability and validity of adapted Turkish Version of Scoliosis Research Society-22 (SRS-22) questionnaire. Spine 30:2464–2468PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Hashimoto H, Sase T, Arai Y, Maruyama T, Isobe K, Shouno Y (2007) Validation of a Japanese version of the Scoliosis Research Society-22 Patient Questionnaire among idiopathic scoliosis patients in Japan. Spine 32:E141–E146PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Bunge EM, Juttmann RE, de Kleuver M, van Biezen FC, de Koning HJ, NESCIO group (2007) Health-related quality of life in patients with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis after treatment: short-term effects after brace or surgical treatment. Eur Spine J 16:83–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Glowacki M, Misterska E, Laurentowska M, Mankowski P (2009) Polish adaptation of Scoliosis Research Society-22 questionnaire. Spine 34:1060–1065PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Niemeyer T, Schubert C, Halm HF, Herberts T, Leichtle C, Gesicki M (2009) Validity and reliability of an adapted German version of Scoliosis Research Society-22 questionnaire. Spine 34:818–821PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Beauséjour M, Joncas J, Goulet L, Roy-Beaudry M, Parent S, Grimard G et al (2009) Reliability and validity of adapted French Canadian version of Scoliosis Research Society Outcomes Questionnaire (SRS-22) in Quebec. Spine 34:623–628PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Antonarakos PD, Katranitsa L, Angelis L, Paganas A, Koen EM, Christodoulou EA et al (2009) Reliability and validity of the adapted Greek version of Scoliosis Research Society-22 (SRS-22) questionnaire. Scoliosis 4:14PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Monticone M, Baiardi P, Calabrò D, Calabrò F, Foti C (2010) Development of the Italian version of the revised Scoliosis Research Society-22 Patient Questionnaire, SRS-22r-I: cross-cultural adaptation, factor analysis, reliability, and validity. Spine 35:E1412–E1417PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Mousavi SJ, Mobini B, Mehdian H, Akbarnia B, Bouzari B, Askary-Ashtiani A et al (2010) Reliability and validity of the Persian version of the Scoliosis Research Society-22r questionnaire. Spine 35:784–789PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Lee JS, Lee DH, Suh KT, Kim JI, Lim JM, Goh TS (2011) Validation of the Korean version of the Scoliosis Research Society-22 questionnaire. Eur Spine J 20:1751–1756PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Leelapattana P, Keorochana G, Johnson J, Wajanavisit W, Laohacharoensombat W (2011) Reliability and validity of an adapted Thai version of the Scoliosis Research Society-22 questionnaire. J Child Orthop 5:35–40PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Carriço G, Meves R, Avanzi O (2012) Cross-cultural adaptation and validity of an adapted Brazilian Portuguese version of Scoliosis Research Society-30 questionnaire. Spine 37:E60–E63PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Lai SM, Burton DC, Asher MA, Carlson BB (2011) Converting SRS-24, SRS-23, and SRS-22 to SRS-22r: establishing conversion equations using regression modeling. Spine 36:E1525–E1533PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Bagó J, Pérez-Grueso FJS, Les E, Hernández P, Pellisé F (2009) Minimal important differences of the SRS-22 Patient Questionnaire following surgical treatment of idiopathic scoliosis. Eur Spine J 18:1898–1904PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Carreon LY, Sanders JO, Diab M, Sucato DJ, Sturm PF, Glassman SD et al (2010) The minimum clinically important difference in Scoliosis Research Society-22 Appearance, Activity, and Pain domains after surgical correction of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Spine 35:2079–2083PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Verma K, Lonner B, Hoashi JS, Lafage V, Dean L, Engel I et al (2010) Demographic factors affect Scoliosis Research Society-22 performance in healthy adolescents: a comparative baseline for adolescents with idiopathic scoliosis. Spine 35:2134–2139PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Baldus C, Bridwell K, Harrast J, Shaffrey C, Ondra S, Lenke L et al (2011) The Scoliosis Research Society Health-Related Quality of Life (SRS-30) age-gender normative data: an analysis of 1346 adult subjects unaffected by scoliosis. Spine 36:1154–1162PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Sanders JO, Polly DW, Cats-Baril W, Jones J, Lenke LG, O’Brien MF et al (2003) Analysis of patient and parent assessment of deformity in idiopathic scoliosis using the Walter Reed Visual Assessment Scale. Spine 28:2158–2163PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Sanders JO, Harrast JJ, Kuklo TR, Polly DW, Bridwell KH, Diab M et al (2007) The Spinal Appearance Questionnaire: results of reliability, validity, and responsiveness testing in patients with idiopathic scoliosis. Spine 32:2719–2722PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Carreon LY, Sanders JO, Polly DW, Sucato DJ, Parent S, Roy-Beaudry M et al (2011) Spinal appearance questionnaire: factor analysis, scoring, reliability, and validity testing. Spine 36:E1240–E1244PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Bago J, Climent JM, Pineda S, Gilperez C (2007) Further evaluation of the Walter Reed Visual Assessment Scale: correlation with curve pattern and radiological deformity. Scoliosis 2:12PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Mulcahey MJ, Chafetz RS, Santangelo AM, Costello K, Merenda LA, Calhoun C et al (2011) Cognitive testing of the spinal appearance questionnaire with typically developing youth and youth with idiopathic scoliosis. J Pediatr Orthop 31:661–667PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Bago J, Sanchez-Raya J, Perez-Grueso FJS, Climent JM (2010) The Trunk Appearance Perception Scale (TAPS): a new tool to evaluate subjective impression of trunk deformity in patients with idiopathic scoliosis. Scoliosis 5:6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Botens-Helmus C, Klein R, Stephan C (2006) The reliability of the Bad Sobernheim Stress Questionnaire (BSSQbrace) in adolescents with scoliosis during brace treatment. Scoliosis 1:22PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Misterska E, Głowacki M, Harasymczuk J (2009) Polish adaptation of Bad Sobernheim Stress Questionnaire-Brace and Bad Sobernheim Stress Questionnaire-Deformity. Eur Spine J 18:1911–1919PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Aulisa AG, Guzzanti V, Perisano C, Marzetti E, Specchia A, Galli M et al (2010) Determination of quality of life in adolescents with idiopathic scoliosis subjected to conservative treatment. Scoliosis 5:21PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    D’Agata E, Testor CP, Rigo M (2010) Spanish validation of Bad Sobernheim Stress Questionnaire (BSSQ (brace).es) for adolescents with braces. Scoliosis 5:15PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Vasiliadis E, Grivas TB, Gkoltsiou K (2006) The quality of life among children with idiopathic scoliosis during their adolescence has been reported to be affected by the brace itself. Scoliosis 1:7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Rivett L, Rothberg A, Stewart A, Berkowitz R (2009) The relationship between quality of life and compliance to a brace protocol in adolescents with idiopathic scoliosis: a comparative study. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 10:5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Corona J, Matsumoto H, Roye DP, Vitale MG (2011) Measuring quality of life in children with early onset scoliosis: development and initial validation of the early onset scoliosis questionnaire. J Pediatr Orthop 31:180–185PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Watanabe K, Lenke LG, Daubs MD, Watanabe K, Bridwell KH, Stobbs G et al (2009) Is spine deformity surgery in patients with spastic cerebral palsy truly beneficial?: a patient/parent evaluation. Spine 34:2222–2232PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Bridwell KH, Baldus C, Iffrig TM, Lenke LG, Blanke K (1999) Process measures and patient/parent evaluation of surgical management of spinal deformities in patients with progressive flaccid neuromuscular scoliosis (Duchenne’s muscular dystrophy and spinal muscular atrophy). Spine 24:1300–1309PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Larsson ELC, Aaro SI, Normelli HCM, Oberg BE (2005) Long-term follow-up of functioning after spinal surgery in patients with neuromuscular scoliosis. Spine 30:2145–2152PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Jones KB, Sponseller PD, Shindle MK, McCarthy ML (2003) Longitudinal parental perceptions of spinal fusion for neuromuscular spine deformity in patients with totally involved cerebral palsy. J Pediatr Orthop 23:143–149PubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Matsumoto H, Vitale MG, Hyman JE, Roye DP (2011) Can parents rate their children’s quality of life? Perspectives on pediatric orthopedic outcomes. J pediatr orthop B 20:184–190PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Kamper SJ, Ostelo RWJG, Knol DL, Maher CG, de Vet HCW, Hancock MJ (2010) Global Perceived Effect scales provided reliable assessments of health transition in people with musculoskeletal disorders, but ratings are strongly influenced by current status. J Clin Epidemiol 63:760–766PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Yadla S, Maltenfort MG, Ratliff JK, Harrop JS (2010) Adult scoliosis surgery outcomes: a systematic review. Neurosurg Focus 28:E3PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Juan Bagó
    • 1
  • Jose Ma Climent
    • 2
  • Francisco J. S. Pérez-Grueso
    • 3
  • Ferran Pellisé
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Orthopaedic SurgeryHospital Vall d’HebronBarcelonaSpain
  2. 2.Department of Rehabilitation and Physical MedicineAlicante University General HospitalAlicanteSpain
  3. 3.Department of Orthopaedic SurgeryHospital Universitario La PazMadridSpain

Personalised recommendations