Abstract
The correction rate (CR) and fulcrum bending correction index (FBCI) based on the fulcrum bending radiograph (FBR) were parameters introduced to measure the curve correcting ability; however, such parameters do not account for contributions by various, potential extraneous “X-Factors” (e.g. surgical technique, type and power of the instrumentation, anesthetic technique, etc.) involved in curve correction. As such, the purpose of the following study was to propose the concept of the “X-Factor Index” (XFI) as a new parameter for the assessment of the correcting ability of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS). A historical cohort radiographic analysis of the FBR in the setting of hook systems in AIS patients (Luk et al. in Spine 23:2303–2307, 1998) was performed to illustrate the concept of XFI. Thirty-five patients with AIS of the thoracic spine undergoing surgical correction were involved in the analysis. Plain posteroanterior (PA) plain radiographs were utilized and Cobb angles were obtained for each patient. Pre- and postoperative PA angles on standing radiograph and preoperative fulcrum bending angles were obtained for each patient. The fulcrum flexibility, curve CR, and FBCI were determined for all patients. The difference between the preoperative fulcrum bending angle and postoperative PA angle was defined as AngleXF, which accounted for the correction contributed by “X-Factors”. The XFI, designed to measure the curve correcting ability, was calculated by dividing AngleXF by the fulcrum flexibility. The XFI was compared with the curve CR and FBCI by re-evaluating the original data in the original paper (Luk et al. in Spine 23:2303–2307, 1998). The mean standing PA and FBR alignments of the main thoracic curve were 58.3° and 24.5°, respectively. The mean fulcrum flexibility was 58.8%. The mean postoperative standing PA alignment was 24.7°. The mean curve CR was 58.0% and the mean FBCI was 101.1%. The mean XFI was noted as 1.03%. The CR was significantly positively correlated to curve flexibility (r = 0.66; p < 0.01).The FBCI (r = −0.47; p = 0.005) and the XFI (r = −0.45; p = 0.007) were significantly negatively correlated to curve flexibility. The CR was not correlated to AngleXF (r = 0.29; p = 0.089).The FBCI (r = 0.97; p < 0.01) and the XFI (r = 0.961; p < 0.01) were significantly positively correlated to AngleXF. Variation in XFI was noted in some cases originally presenting with same FBCI values. The XFI attempts to quantify the curve correcting ability as contributed by “X-Factors” in the treatment of thoracic AIS. This index may be a valued added parameter to accompany the FBCI for comparing curve correction ability among different series of patients, instrumentation, and surgeons. It is recommended that the XFI should be used to document curve correction, compare between different techniques, and used to improve curve correction for the patient.
Similar content being viewed by others
Abbreviations
- AIS:
-
Adolescent idiopathic scoliosis
- FBR:
-
Fulcrum bending radiograph
- CR:
-
Correction rate
- FBCI:
-
Fulcrum bending correction index
- XFI:
-
X-Factor Index
- AngleTC :
-
The angle of total correction
- AngleF :
-
The correction angle contributed by the inherent flexibility of the curve
- AngleXF :
-
The correction angle contributed by “X-Factors”
References
Cheung KM, Luk KD (1997) Prediction of correction of scoliosis with use of the fulcrum bending radiograph. J Bone Joint Surg Am 79:1144–1150
Cheung KMC, Natarajan D, Samartzis D, Wong YW, Cheung WY, Luk KDK (2010) Predictability of the fulcrum bending radiograph in thoracic adolescent idiopathic scoliosis correction with alternate level pedicle screw fixation. J Bone Joint Surg Am 92:169–176
Cobb JR (1949) Conditions involving the spine and thorax exclusive of those in the lower part of the back. Arch Surg 59:1335–1346
Dobbs MB, Lenke LG, Kim YJ, Luhmann SJ, Bridwell KH (2006) Anterior/posterior spinal instrumentation versus posterior instrumentation alone for the treatment of adolescent idiopathic scoliotic curves more than 90 degrees. Spine 31:2386–2391
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 20:1575–1584
Harrington PR (1962) Treatment of scoliosis. Correction and internal fixation by spine instrumentation. J Bone Joint Surg Am 44-A:591–610
Kim YJ, Lenke LG, Cho SK, Bridwell KH, Sides B, Blanke K (2004) Comparative analysis of pedicle screw versus hook instrumentation in posterior spinal fusion of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Spine 29:2040–2048
Kim YJ, Lenke LG, Kim J, Bridwell KH, Cho SK, Cheh G, Sides B (2006) Comparative analysis of pedicle screw versus hybrid instrumentation in posterior spinal fusion of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Spine 31:291–298
King HA, Moe JH, Bradford DS, Winter RB (1983) The selection of fusion levels in thoracic idiopathic scoliosis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 65:1302–1313
Luk KD, Cheung KM, Lu DS, Leong JC (1998) Assessment of scoliosis correction in relation to flexibility using the fulcrum bending correction index. Spine 23:2303–2307
Luk KD, Lu DS, Cheung KM, Wong YW (2004) A prospective comparison of the coronal deformity correction in thoracic scoliosis using four different instrumentations and the fulcrum bending radiograph. Spine 29:560–563
Wojcik AS, Webb JK, Burwell RG (1990) Harrington–Luque and Cotrel–Dubousset instrumentation for idiopathic thoracic scoliosis. A postoperative comparison using segmental radiologic analysis. Spine 15:424–431
Conflict of interest
The authors have no financial or competing interests related to this work to disclose.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding authors
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Sun, Y.Q., Samartzis, D., Cheung, K.M.C. et al. The “X-Factor” Index: a new parameter for the assessment of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis correction. Eur Spine J 20, 144–150 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-010-1534-3
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-010-1534-3