Reply to the Letter to the Editor of Zehao Jing et al. concerning “Scoliosis convexity and organ anatomy are related” by T. P. C. Schlösser et al. (Eur Spine J; 2017: doi:10.1007/s00586-017-4970-5)

Author's Reply
  • 102 Downloads

We thank you for your interest and critical review of our manuscript [1]. We understand your concerns regarding the potential pathogenetic link between primary ciliary dyskinesia (PCD) and scoliosis.

We agree, on the one hand, that recent data on the ependymal cell cilia development and the onset of scoliosis by Oliazadeh et al. could supports the hypothesis that scoliosis in PCD patients may not be of the ‘idiopathic’-type [2]. On the other hand, we do not fear that our conclusions are questionable based on the prevalence of scoliosis in our PCD population. Despite the frequent citation of the overall prevalence of 1.5–3% for idiopathic scoliosis, Konieczny et al. have demonstrated that the prevalence of idiopathic scoliosis as reported in epidemiological studies varies widely and is dependent of age, gender, race and screening methodology: They found prevalences reported between 0.47 and 11.1% [3]. Even, in epidemiological studies that are most comparable to our design (screening on chest X-rays), the prevalence of thoracic scoliosis is 8–24% [4, 5, 6]. Therefore, we would like to remind the readers that the prevalence of scoliosis in our population of PCD patients (8%) is within the range reported for the prevalence of scoliosis in the general population.

Based on our data, we cannot support or withdraw any hypothesis on the etiopathogenesis of development of scoliosis in patients with primary ciliary pathology, other than curve convexity. Going forward, it is our hope that research on ciliary dysfunction will spark our understanding of the development of scoliosis of the idiopathic type.

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

T.S. received a grant by AOSpine; R.C. receives research support by K2M Group Holdings, Inc. and a grant by AOSpine.

References

  1. 1.
    Schlosser TP, Semple T, Carr SB, Padley S, Loebinger MR, Hogg C, Castelein RM (2017) Scoliosis convexity and organ anatomy are related. Eur Spine J. doi:10.1007/s00586-017-4970-5 Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Oliazadeh N, Franco A, Wang D, Moreau A (2015) Abnormalities in primary cilium of osteoblasts of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis patients. Cilia 4(Suppl 1):6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Konieczny MR, Senyurt H, Krauspe R (2013) Epidemiology of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. J Child Orthop. doi:10.1007/s11832-012-0457-4 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Carter OD, Haynes SG (1987) Prevalence rates for scoliosis in US adults: results from the first National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. Int J Epidemiol 16(4):537–544CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Urrutia J, Zamora T, Klaber I (2014) Thoracic scoliosis prevalence in patients 50 years or older and its relationship with age, sex, and thoracic kyphosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). doi:10.1097/BRS.0000000000000095 Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chen JB, Kim AD, Allan-Blitz L, Shamie AN (2016) Prevalence of thoracic scoliosis in adults 25 to 64 years of age detected during routine chest radiographs. Eur Spine J. doi:10.1007/s00586-015-4215-4 Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Orthopaedic SurgeryUniversity Medical Center UtrechtUtrechtThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations