Skip to main content

Comparison of operative implications between adolescent and young adult idiopathic scoliosis patients from scoliosis research society mortality and morbidity database



To compare the operative implications between adolescent idiopathic scoliosis patients (10–18 years) and young adult idiopathic scoliosis (YAdIS) patients (19–30 years).


This was a retrospective study querying the SRS M&M database for AIS (10–18 years) and YAdIS (19–30 years) cases enrolled between 2009 and 2015. Demographic and surgical parameters (Lenke curve classification, preoperative curve magnitude, approach type, osteotomy type, estimated blood volume (EBV), levels of fusion and ASA scores) were evaluated and compared between groups.


N = 690: AIS (n = 607) and YAdIS (n = 83). Lenke curve classification distributions in AIS and YAdIS cases were: main thoracic, 293 vs. 34; double thoracic, 42 vs. 5; double major, 159 vs. 15; triple major, 15 vs. 5; thoracolumbar, 85 vs. 17; and lumbar, 5 vs. 6, respectively. Patients with a coronal curve > 90° were significantly greater in YAdIS vs. AIS patients, p = 0.008. Anterior and combined surgery rates were significantly higher in YAdIS, p = 0.028. Two-staged surgeries were significantly higher for YAdIS cohort, p = 0.01. Osteotomy rate was similar between groups, p = 0.42, but proportion of 3-column osteotomies was significantly higher for YAdIS, p < 0.001. ASA (severe systemic disease and some functional limitation) score 3 patients’ rate was higher in YAdIS cohort, p = 0.01. EBV was significantly higher in YAdIS, p = 0.01. Average number of levels of fusions between cohorts was not significant, p = 0.87.


The operative implications observed with young adult idiopathic scoliosis patients may potentially result in more complex surgical procedures and operative-associated complications than their adolescent counterparts. Further studies are required and should include a larger number of cases, be prospective in nature and verifiable data.

Level of evidence


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

Availability of data and material

Scoliosis Research Society Morbidity and Mortality Database.

Code availability

Not applicable.


  1. Reamy BV, Slakey JB (2001) Adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: review and current concepts. Am Fam Physician 64(1):111–116 (PMID:11456428)

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Addai D, Zarkos J, Bowey AJ (2020) Current concepts in the diagnosis and management of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Childs Nerv Syst 36(6):1111–1119.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Wagner S, Lehman R, Lenke L (2015) Surgical management of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Semin Spine Surg 27(1):33–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Bridwell KH (1999) Surgical treatment of idiopathic adolescent scoliosis. Spine 24(24):2607–2616.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Yang JH, Bhandarkar AW, Rathanvelu B et al (2014) Does delaying surgery in mature adolescent idiopathic scoliosis patients with progressive curve, lead to addition of fusion levels? Eur Spine J 23(12):2672–2679.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Pesenti S, Jouve JL, Morin C et al (2015) Evolution of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: results of a multicenter study at 20 years’ follow-up. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 101(5):619–622.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Rushton PR, Grevitt MP (2013) Comparison of untreated adolescent idiopathic scoliosis with normal controls: a review and statistical analysis of the literature. Spine 38(9):778–785.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Weinstein SL, Dolan LA, Spratt KF et al (2003) Health and function of patients with untreated idiopathic scoliosis: a 50-year natural history study. JAMA 289(5):559–567.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Zhu F, Bao H, Yan P et al (2017) Comparison of surgical outcomes of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis and young adult idiopathic scoliosis: a match-pair analysis of 160 patients. Spine 42(19):E1133-1139.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Weinstein SL, Ponseti IV (1983) Curve progression in idiopathic scoliosis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 65(4):447–455.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Byrd JA 3rd, Scoles PV, Winter RB et al (1987) Adult idiopathic scoliosis treated by anterior and posterior spinal fusion. J Bone Joint Surg Am 69(6):843–850.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Kim YJ, Bridwell KH, Lenke LG et al (2005) Psuedarthrosis in primary fusions for adult idiopathic scoliosis: incidence, risk factors, and outcome analysis. Spine 30(4):468–474.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Kandwal P, Goswami A, Vijayaraghavan G et al (2016) Staged anterior release and posterior instrumentation in correction of severe rigid scoliosis (Cobb angle >100 degrees). Spine Deform 4(4):296–303.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Ruston PR, Grevitt MP, Sell PJ (2015) Anterior or posterior surgery for right thoracic adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS)? A prospective cohorts’ comparison using radiologic and functional outcomes. J Spinal Disord Tech 28(3):80–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Lonner BS, Auerbach JD, Estreicher MB et al (2009) Thoracic pedicle screw instrumentation: the learning curve and evolution in technique in the treatment of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Spine 34(20):2158–2164.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Rustagi T, Kurra S, Sullivan K et al (2019) Surgical treatment of early onset idiopathic scoliosis in the United States: a trend analysis of 15 years (1997–2012). Spine J 19(2):314–320.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Betz RR, Harms J, Clements DH 3rd et al (1999) Comparison of anterior and posterior instrumentation for correction of adolescent thoracic idiopathic scoliosis. Spine 24(3):225–239.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Wang Y, Fei Q, Qiu G et al (2008) Anterior spinal fusion versus posterior spinal fusion for moderate lumbar/thoracolumbar adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: a prospective study. Spine 33(20):2166–2172.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Sucato DJ (2010) Management of severe spinal deformity: scoliosis and kyphosis. Spine 35(25):2186–2192.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Schwab F, Blondel B, Chay E et al (2015) The comprehensive anatomical spinal osteotomy classification. Neurosurgery 76(1):S33-41.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Daubs MD, Brodke DS, Annis P et al (2016) Perioperative complications of pedicle subtraction osteotomy. Global Spine J 6(7):630–635.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Sze CH, Smith JC, Luhmann SJ (2018) Complications of posterior column osteotomies in the pediatric spinal deformity patient. Spine Deform 6(6):656–661.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Boachie-Adjei O, Yagi M, Nemani VM et al (2015) Incidence and risk factors for major surgical complications in patients with complex spinal deformity: a report from an SRS GOP site. Spine Deform 3(11):57–64.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Janssen SJ, Braun Y, Wood KB et al (2015) Allogeneic blood transfusions and postoperative infections after lumbar spine surgery. Spine J 15(5):901–909.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Croft LD, Pottinger JM, Chiang HY et al (2015) Risk factors for surgical site infections after pediatric spine operations. Spine 40(2):E112-119.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Shaw R, Skovrlj B, Cho SK (2016) Association between age and complications in adult scoliosis surgery: an analysis of the Scoliosis Research Society Morbidity and Mortality Database. Spine 41(6):508–514.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references


The authors did not receive funds, grants or other support from any organization for the submitted work.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations



SK, PD, WFL: made substantial contributions to conception or design; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data, drafted the work or revised it critically for 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 William F. Lavelle.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare that are relevant to the content of this article. Outside of this manuscript SK: nothing to disclose. PD: nothing to disclose. WFL: research support (money paid to institution) Abryx, AO Foundation, Cerapedics, DePuy Spine, Empirical Spine, Innovasis, Medtronic, Spinal Kinetics, Inc., Vertebral Technologies, Inc.; paid consultant: DePuy Spine, 4-Web, Vertiflex; Stock or Stock Options for 4-Web, Expanding Innovations, Prosydian; Board or committee member receiving no compensation for AAOS, SRS NASS, Innovasis (Scientific Advisory Board), Prosydian (Surgeon Advisory Board); Editorial or governing board for Spine Deformity Journal and SAS.

Ethics approval

Not applicable.

Consent to participate

Not applicable.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kurra, S., DeMercurio, P. & Lavelle, W.F. Comparison of operative implications between adolescent and young adult idiopathic scoliosis patients from scoliosis research society mortality and morbidity database. Spine Deform 10, 1133–1138 (2022).

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI:


  • Adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS)
  • Young adult idiopathic scoliosis (YAdIS)
  • Operative implications