Skip to main content

Leg length discrepancy and adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: clinical and radiological characteristics

A Correction to this article was published on 26 November 2021

This article has been updated



This retrospective study aimed to present the clinical and radiological features of functional scoliosis due to LLD and LLD concurrent with AIS; it also aimed to define their relationships for differentiating functional scoliosis due to LLD and LLD concurrent with AIS.


This study was conducted as a single-center retrospective comparative study on 47 scoliosis patients with diagnosed LLD, aged 10–18 years. Cases with a diagnosis of structural LLD were divided into two groups according to the presence or absence of concurrent AIS. Data on demographics and the angle of trunk rotation on a sacral basis (ATRsacrum) were recorded. Limb length was clinically measured with a tape measure and clinical LLD (C-LLD) scoliometer test. Cobb angle, axial rotation, pelvic obliquity, and radiological LLD (R-LLD) were obtained from standing spine radiographs and measured by two blinded orthopedic spine surgeons.


The prevalence of LLD was 6.7% in scoliosis patients in our study population. Cobb angle and apical rotation were higher in the LLD concurrent with AIS group than in the LLD group (p ≤ 0.05). The C-LLDscoliometer test results were strongly correlated with both C-LLDtape measure (r = 0.651; p = 0.000) and ATRsacrum (r = 0.688; p = 0.000).


LLD may develop as a result of adaptive changes due to scoliosis, or a concurrent condition to scoliosis. Cobb angle and apical rotation are the features that differentiate AIS from functional scoliosis in patients with LLD. The C-LLD scoliometer test can be an effective, practical, and useful method for measuring C-LLD, but its validity and reliability should be determined.

Trial registration

This study was retrospectively registered at (number: NCT04713397, date of registration: 01/14/2021).

Level of evidence


This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Change history


  1. 1.

    Knutson GA (2005) Anatomic and functional leg-length inequality: a review and recommendation for clinical decision-making. Part I, anatomic leg-length inequality: prevalence, magnitude, effects and clinical significance. Chiropr Osteopat 13:1–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Guichet JM, Spivak JM, Trouilloud P, Grammont PM (1991) Lower limb-length discrepancy: an epidemiologic study. Clin Orthop Relat Res 272:235–241

    Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Walsh M, Connoly P, Jenkinson ATO (2000) Leg length discrepancy—an experimental study of compensatory.pdf. Gait Posture 12:156–161

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Gurney B (2002) Leg length discrepancy. Gait Posture 15:195–206.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Pinto EM, Alves J, De Castro AM et al (2019) Leg length discrepancy in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Coluna/Columna 18:192–195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Grivas TB, Angouris K, Chandrinos M, Kechagias V (2018) Truncal changes in children with mild limb length inequality: a surface topography study. Scoliosis Spinal Disord 13:1–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Papaioannou T, Stokes I, Kenwright J (1982) Scoliosis associated with limb-length inequality. J Bone Jt Surg Ser A 64:59–62.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Soukka A, Alaranta H, Tallroth KHM (1991) Leg-length inequality in people of working age. The association between mild inequality and low- back pain is questionable. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 16:429–431

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Kakushima M, Miyamoto K, Shimizu K (2003) The effect of leg length discrepancy on spinal motion during gait. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 28:2472–2476.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Brady RJ, Dean JB, Marc Skinner T, Gross MT (2003) Limb length ınequality: clinical ımplications for assessment and ıntervention. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 33:221–234

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Sabharwal S, Kumar A (2008) Methods for assessing leg length discrepancy. Clin Orthop Relat Res 466:2910–2922.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Winter RB, Bredford DS, Lonstein JEOJ (1995) Patient evaluation. MOE’S textbook of scoliosis and other spinal deformities, 3rd edn. W.B Saunders Company, Philadelphia, pp 45–85

    Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Perdriolle R, Vidal J (1985) Thoracic idiopathic scoliosis curve evolution and prognosis. Spine 10:785–791

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Lafage R, Ferrero E, Henry JK et al (2015) Validation of a new computer-assisted tool to measure spino-pelvic parameters. Spine J 15:2493–2502.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Chad W. Farley CK (2004) Spinal deformity: measuring, defining, and classifying. In: Benzel EC (ed) Spine surgery: techniques, complication avoidance, and management, second. Elsevier Health Sciences, p 885

  16. 16.

    Dayer R, Ouellet JA, Saran N (2012) Pelvic fixation for neuromuscular scoliosis deformity correction. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med 5:91–101.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Hägglund G, Goldring M, Hermanson M, Rodby-Bousquet E (2018) Pelvic obliquity and measurement of hip displacement in children with cerebral palsy. Acta Orthop 89:652–655.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Gravesande J, Richardson J, Griffith L, Scott F (2019) Test-retest reliability, internal consistency, construct validity and factor structure of a falls risk perception questionnaire in older adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a prospective cohort study. Arch Physiother 9:1–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Landauer F (2013) Diagnosis and treatment of leg-length discrepancy in scoliosis. Scoliolisis 8:7161.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Ashour R, Abdelraouf O, Abdallah A, Sweif R (2019) Effect of footwear modification on postural symmetry and body balance in leg length discrepancy: a randomized controlled study. Int J Osteopath Med 32:13–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Jarvis HL, Nester CJ, Jones RK et al (2012) Inter-assessor reliability of practice based biomechanical assessment of the foot and ankle. J Foot Ankle Res 5:1–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Golightly YM, Tate JJ, Burns CB, Gross MT (2007) Changes in pain and disability secondary to shoe lift intervention in subjects with limb length inequality and chronic low back pain: a preliminary report. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 37:380–388.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Mannello DM (1992) Leg length inequality. J Manipulative Physiol Ther 15:576–590.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Giles LGF, Taylor JR (1982) Lumbar spine structural changes associated with leg length inequality. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 7:159–162

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Golightly YM, Allen KD, Helmick CG et al (2010) Hazard of incident and progressive knee and hip radiographic osteoarthritis and chronic joint symptoms in individuals with and without limb length inequality. J Rheumatol 37:2133–2140.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Khamis S, Carmeli E (2017) A new concept for measuring leg length discrepancy. J Orthop 14:276–280.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Neelly K, Wallmann HW, Backus CJ (2013) Validity of measuring leg length with a tape measure compared to a computed tomography scan. Physiother Theory Pract 29:487–492.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Khamis S, Carmeli E (2017) Relationship and significance of gait deviations associated with limb length discrepancy: a systematic review. Gait Posture 57:115–123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Nguyen HT, Resnick DN, Caldwell SG et al (1999) Interexaminer reliability of activator methods’ relative leg-length evaluation in the prone extended position. J Manipulative Physiol Ther 22:565–569.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Rothenberg RJ (1988) Rheumatic disease aspects of leg length inequality. Semin Arthritis Rheum 17:196–205.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Gomez-Aguilar E, Reina-Bueno M, Lafuente-Sotillos G et al (2021) Validity of clinical methods in the detection of leg-length discrepancies. HIP Int 31:186–190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references


No funding was received for this study.

Author information




AB, KA, HB, HY: Made substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data; or the creation of new software used in the work. Drafted the work or revised it critically for important intellectual content. Approved the version to be published. Agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ahsen Buyukaslan.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Ethics approval

The study was approved by the Ethical Committee of Halic University, Istanbul (date: 28.12.2018, issue no: 171-30 number).

Additional information

The original online version of this article was revised: In Fig. 2 of this article, there was a label reading "0.7 mm" instead of "0.7 cm".

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Buyukaslan, A., Abul, K., Berk, H. et al. Leg length discrepancy and adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: clinical and radiological characteristics. Spine Deform (2021).

Download citation


  • Leg length discrepancy
  • Scoliosis
  • Pelvic obliquity
  • Leg length discrepancy scoliometer test