Skip to main content

Re-evaluating consensus and uncertainty among treatment options for early onset scoliosis: a 10-year update

A Correction to this article was published on 28 September 2022

This article has been updated

Abstract

Purpose

Consensus and uncertainty in early onset scoliosis (EOS) treatment were evaluated in 2010. It is currently unknown how treatment preferences have evolved over the past decade. The purpose of this study was to re-evaluate consensus and uncertainty among treatment options for EOS patients to understand how they compare to 10 years ago.

Methods

11 pediatric spinal surgeons (similar participants as in 2010) were invited to complete a survey of 315 idiopathic and neuromuscular EOS cases (same cases as in 2010). Treatment options included the following: conservative management, distraction-based methods, growth guidance/modulation, and arthrodesis. Consensus was defined as ≥ 70% agreement, and uncertainty was < 70%. Associations between case characteristics and consensus for treatments were assessed via chi-squared and multiple regression analyses. Case characteristics associated with uncertainty were described.

Results

Eleven surgeons [31.7 ± 7.8 years of experience] in the original 2010 cohort completed the survey. Consensus for conservative management was found in idiopathic patients aged ≤ 3, whereas in 2010, some of these cases were selected for surgery. There is currently consensus for casting idiopathic patients aged 1 or 2 with moderate curves, whereas in 2010, there was uncertainty between casting and bracing. Among neuromuscular cases with consensus for surgery, arthrodesis was chosen for patients aged 9 with larger curves.

Conclusion

Presently, preferences for conservative management have increased in comparison to 2010, and casting appears to be preferred over bracing in select infantile cases. Future research efforts with higher levels-of-evidence should be devoted to elucidate the areas of uncertainty to improve care in the EOS population.

Level of evidence

Level V.

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

Fig. 1

Data availability

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author, HM, upon reasonable request.

Code availability

Not applicable.

Change history

References

  1. Fernandes P, Weinstein SL (2007) Natural history of early onset scoliosis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 89(Suppl 1):21–33. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.F.00754

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Corona J, Miller DJ, Downs J et al (2013) Evaluating the extent of clinical uncertainty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 95:e67

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Vitale MG, Gomez JA, Matsumoto H et al (2011) Variability of expert opinion in treatment of early-onset scoliosis. Clin Orthop Relat Res 469:1317–1322

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Alderson P (1996) Equipoise as a means of managing uncertainty: personal, communal and proxy. J Med Ethics 22:135–139

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Fries JF, Krishnan E (2004) Equipoise, design bias, and randomized controlled trials: the elusive ethics of new drug development. Arthritis Res Ther 6:R250–R255. https://doi.org/10.1186/ar1170

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Bonsignore-Opp L, Murphy J, Skaggs D et al (2019) Pediatric device regulation: the case of anterior vertebral body tethering. Spine Deform 7:1019–1020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jspd.2019.09.006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Samdani AF, Pahys JM, Ames RJ et al (2021) Prospective follow-up report on anterior vertebral. J Bone Joint Surg Am 103:1611–1619

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Cheung KM, Cheung JP, Samartzis D et al (2012) Magnetically controlled growing rods for severe spinal curvature in young children: a prospective case series. Lancet 379:1967–1974. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(12)60112-3

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Phillips JH, Knapp DR, Herrera-Soto J. 2013 Mortality and Morbidity in Early-Onset Scoliosis Surgery Spine 38(4): 324–327. doi: https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e31826c6743

  10. Bachabi M, McClung A, Pawelek JB et al (2020) Idiopathic early-onset scoliosis: growing rods versus vertically expandable prosthetic titanium ribs at 5-year follow-up. J Pediatr Orthop 40:142–148. https://doi.org/10.1097/BPO.0000000000001202

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Upasani VV, Parvaresh KC, Pawelek JB et al (2016) Age at Initiation and deformity magnitude influence complication rates of surgical treatment with traditional growing rods in early-onset scoliosis. Spine Deform 4:344–350. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jspd.2016.04.002

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Sanders JO, D’Astous J, Fitzgerald M et al (2009) Derotational casting for progressive infantile scoliosis. J Pediatr Orthop 29:581–587. https://doi.org/10.1097/BPO.0b013e3181b2f8df

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Waldron SR, Poe-Kochert C, Son-Hing JP et al (2013) Early onset scoliosis: the value of serial risser casts. J Pediatr Orthop 33:775–780. https://doi.org/10.1097/BPO.0000000000000072

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Fletcher ND, McClung A, Rathjen KE et al (2012) Serial casting as a delay tactic in the treatment of moderate-to-severe early-onset scoliosis. J Pediatr Orthop 32:664–671. https://doi.org/10.1097/BPO.0b013e31824bdb55

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Thompson GH, Akbarnia B, Campbell RM (2007) Growing rod techniques in early-onset scoliosis. J Pediatr Orthop 27:354–361. https://doi.org/10.1097/BPO.0b013e3180333eea

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Thorsness RJ, Faust JR, Behrend CJ et al (2015) Nonsurgical management of early-onset scoliosis. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 23:519–528

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Akbarnia BA, Pawelek JB, Cheung KM et al (2014) Traditional growing rods versus magnetically controlled growing rods for the surgical treatment of early-onset scoliosis: a case-matched 2-year study. Spine Deform 2:493–497. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jspd.2014.09.050

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Bekmez S, Afandiyev A, Dede O et al (2019) Is magnetically controlled growing rod the game changer in early-onset scoliosis? a preliminary report. J Pediatr Orthop 39:E195–E200. https://doi.org/10.1097/BPO.0000000000001268

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Bauer JM, Yorgova P, Neiss G et al (2019) Early onset scoliosis: is there an improvement in quality of life with conversion from traditional growing rods to magnetically controlled growing rods? J Pediatr Orthop 39:E284–E288. https://doi.org/10.1097/BPO.0000000000001299

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Chen Z, Qiu Y, Zhu Z et al (2017) How does hyperkyphotic early-onset scoliosis respond to growing rod treatment? J Pediatr Orthop 37:e593–e598. https://doi.org/10.1097/BPO.0000000000000905

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Varley ES, Pawelek JB, Mundis GM et al (2021) The role of traditional growing rods in the era of magnetically controlled growing rods for the treatment of early-onset scoliosis. Spine Deform 9:1465–1472. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43390-021-00332-4

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Vitale MG, Matsumoto H, Bye MR et al. (2008) A retrospective cohort study of pulmonary function, radiographic measures, and quality of life in children with congenital scoliosis: an evaluation of patient outcomes after early spinal fusion. Spine. 33(11):1242–9. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181714536

  23. Karol LA, Johnston C, Mladenov K et al (2008) Pulmonary function following early thoracic fusion in non-neuromuscular scoliosis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 90:1272–1281. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.G.00184

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Pawelek JB, Yaszay B, Nguyen S et al. 2016 Case-matched comparison of spinal fusion versus growing rods for progressive idiopathic scoliosis in skeletally immature patients. Spine 41(3):234–238. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000001198

  25. Glotzbecker M (2021) From the Wild West to the Moon: The Future of Early Onset Scoliosis. JPOSNA 3.

  26. Johnson N, Lilford RJ, Brazier W (1991) At what level of collective equipoise does a clinical trial become ethical? J Med Ethics 17:30–34

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This work was conducted without the support of additional funding.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

HM, ANF, TQ,BA, LB, JF, DS, JS, BS, PS, RM, PS, DR, JE, MGV; 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. HM, ANF, TQ,BA, LB, JF, DS, JS, BS, PS, RM, PS, DR, JE, MGV; Drafted the work or revised it critically for important intellectual content. HM, ANF, TQ,BA, LB, JF, DS, JS, BS, PS, RM, PS, DR, JE, MGV; Approved of the version to be published. HM, ANF, TQ,BA, LB, JF, DS, JS, BS, PS, RM, PS, DR, JE, MGV; 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 Hiroko Matsumoto.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

Dr. Blakemore reports personal fees from Stryker outside the submitted work. Dr. Matsumoto reports personal fees from Pediatric Spine Foundation, grants from Scoliosis Research Society, grants from Pediatric Orthopaedic of North America outside the submitted work. Dr. McCarthy reports personal fees from Medtronic and OrthoPediatrics outside the submitted work. Dr. Skaggs reports personal fees from Biomet, personal fees from Grand Rounds, personal fees from Orthobullets, and grants from Growing Spine Foundation outside the submitted work. Dr. Sponseller reports personal fees from DePuy Synthes, personal fees from OrthoPediatrics, and personal fees from Nuvasive outside the submitted work. Dr. Sturm reports personal fees from Nuvasive and DePuy Synthes outside the submitted work. Dr. Vitale reports non-financial support from Pediatric Spine Foundation, during the conduct of the study; grants from Setting Scoliosis Straight Foundation, grants and other from Children’s Spine Foundation, grants from Orthopaedic Scientific Research Foundation, grants and other from POSNA, other from OMeGA, personal fees from Stryker, personal fees from Biomet, personal fees from Nuvasive outside of the submitted work. The other authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose.

Ethical approval

This study was approved by the participating sites and by the Columbia University Institutional Review Board under protocol AAAS6106. It was performed in accordance with the ethical standards of the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Consent to participate

This study qualifies for a waiver of consent because it is a survey of surgeons and does not involve patient participation. There is no potential to adversely affect the rights or welfare of subjects since this is a survey to gather surgeon opinion, with no patient data being collected or intervention being tested.

Consent for publication

No patient identifying information is included in the article. Not applicable.

Copyright and patient information

No copyrighted materials or patient information is included in this manuscript submission.

Permission to reproduce copyrighted materials

No copyrighted materials are included in this manuscript.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

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

The original online version of this article was revised: In this article the academic degrees of authors Adam N. Fano and Theodore Quan had been erronously included as part of their names.

Appendix 1: Characteristics of cases with treatment consensus and uncertainty

Appendix 1: Characteristics of cases with treatment consensus and uncertainty

Case characteristics Treatment consensus Treatment uncertainty
Idiopathic Scoliosis
 Age of 1, 2, 3, 6, or 9 yearrs; Cobb angle of 30°, 60°, or 90°; 0°, 15°, or 30° curve progression in the past 6 months; normal or hyperkyphosis; flexible or rigid curve Conservative  
 Age of 6 years*; Cobb angle of 60° or 90°; 0°, 15°, or 30° curve progression in thepast 6 months; normal or hyperkyphosis; flexible or rigid curve Distraction  
 Age of 6 years; Cobb angle of 60° or 90°; 0°, 15°, or 30° curve progression in the past 6 months; hyperkyphosis; rigid curve TGR  
 Age of 6 yrs; Cobb angle of 60° or 90°; 0°, 15° or 30° curve progression in last 6 mo; normokyphosis, flexible or rigid curve MCGR  
 Age of 6 yrs; Cobb angle of 90°; 30° curve progression in last 6 mo; normokyphosis, flexible curve Spine-based  
 Age of 6 years; Cobb angle of 60° or 90°; 0°, 15°, or 30° curve progression in the past 6 months; normal or hyperkyphosis; rigid curve Rib-based  
 Age of 9 years; Cobb angle of 60°; 0°, 15°, or 30° curve progression in the past 6 months; hyperkyphosis; flexible curve Growth guidance  
 Age of 9 years; Cobb angle of 60°; 15° or 30° curve progression in the past 6 months; normokyphosis; flexible curve Growth modulation  
 Age of 9 years; Cobb angle of 60° or 90°; 0°, 15°, or 30° curve progression in the past 6 months; normal or hyperkyphosis, flexible or rigid curve   Growth guidance-arthrodesis
 Age of 9 years; Cobb angle of 60°; 0° of curve progression in the past 6 months; normokyphosis; flexible curve   Conservative-surgical
 Age of 6 or 9 years; Cobb angle of 60°; 0°, 15°, or 30° curve progression in the past 6 months; normokyphosis; rigid curve   No treatment preference
 Age of 1, 2, 3, or 6 years; Cobb angle of 30°; 0° curve progression in the past 6 months; normal or hyperkyphosis; flexible or rigid curve   Observation-bracing
 Age of 6 yrs; Cobb angle of 90°; 0°, 15°, or 30° curve progression in last 6 mo; hyperkyphosis; flexible curve   TGR-Rib/spine-MCGR-spine/Spine
 Age of 6 years; Cobb angle of 90°; 0°, 15°, 30° curve progression in the past 6 months; normokyphosis; flexible or rigid curve   MCGR-Rib/spine-MCGR-spine/spine
 Age of 6 years; Cobb angle of 90°; 0°, 15°, 30° curve progression in the past 6 months; hyperkyphosis; flexible curve   TGR-MCGR
 Age of 6 years; Cobb angle of 90°; 0°, 15°, or 30° curve progression in the past 6 months; normal or hyperkyphosis; flexible or rigid curve   Rib-based-spine-based distraction
 Age of 1, 2, 3, or 6 yrs; Cobb angle of 30°; 0° curve progression in last 6 mo; normal or hyperkyphosis; flexible or rigid curve   Observation-intervention
Neuromuscular Scoliosis
 Hypertonic or hypotonic/myopathic; age of 3, 6, or 9 years; Cobb angle of 30° or 60°; 0°, 15°, or 30° curve progression in the past 6 months; normal or hyperkyphosis; flexible or rigid curve; respiratory impairment or no respiratory impairment; poor or normal nutritional status; chest wall involvement or no chest wall involvement Conservative  
 Hypertonic or hypotonic/myopathic; age of 3, 6, or 9 years; Cobb angle of 60° or 90°; 0°, 15°, or 30° curve progression in the past 6 mo; normal or hyperkyphosis; flexible or rigid curve; respiratory impairment or no respiratory impairment; poor or normal nutritional status; chest wall involvement or no chest wall involvement Distraction  
 Hypotonic/myopathic; age of 3 years; Cobb angle of 90°; 15° or 30° curve progression in the past 6 months; hyperkyphosis; flexible curve; respiratory impairment; normal nutritional status; chest wall involvement VEPTR  
 Hypertonic or hypotonic/myopathic; age of 3, 6, or 9 years; Cobb angle of 60° or 90°; 0°, 15°, or 30° curve progression in the past 6 mo; normal or hyperkyphosis; flexible or rigid curve; respiratory impairment or no respiratory impairment; poor or normal nutritional status; chest wall involvement or no chest wall involvement MCGR  
 Hypertonic or hypotonic/myopathic; age of 6 or 9 years; Cobb angle of 60° or 90°; 15° or 30° curve progression in the past 6 months; normal or hyperkyphosis; flexible or rigid curve; respiratory impairment or no respiratory impairment; poor or normal nutritional status; chest wall involvement or no chest wall involvement Spine-based  
 Hypertonic or hypotonic/myopathic; age 3 or 6 years; Cobb angle of 60° or 90°; 0°, 15°, or 30° curve progression in the past 6 months; normal or hyperkyphosis; flexible or rigid curve; respiratory impairment or no respiratory impairment; poor or normal nutritional status; chest wall involvement or no chest wall involvement Rib-based  
 Hypertonic or hypotonic/myopathic; age of 9 years; Cobb angle of 60° or 90°; 0°, 15°, or 30° curve progression in the past 6 mo; normal or hyperkyphosis; flexible or rigid curve; respiratory impairment or no respiratory impairment; poor or normal nutritional status; chest wall involvement or no chest wall involvement Arthrodesis  
 Hypertonic or hypotonic/myopathic; age of 6 or 9 years; Cobb angle of 60°; 0° or 15° curve progression in the past 6 months; normokyphosis; flexible or rigid curve; respiratory impairment or no respiratory impairment; poor or normal nutritional status; chest wall involvement or no chest wall involvement   Conservative-distraction
 Hypertonic; age of 9 yrs; Cobb angle of 60° or 90°; 0° or 15° curve progression in last 6 mo; hyperkyphosis; flexible or rigid curve; respiratory impairment or no respiratory impairment; poor or normal nutritional status; chest wall involvement or no chest wall involvement   Conservative-arthrodesis
 Hypertonic or hypotonic/myopathic; age of 9 years; Cobb angle of 60° or 90°; 0°, 15°, 30° curve progression in the past 6 mo; normal or hyperkyphosis; flexible curve; respiratory impairment; poor or normal nutritional status; chest wall involvement or no chest wall involvement   Distraction-arthrodesis
 Hypertonic or hypotonic/myopathic; age of 6 or 9 years; Cobb angle of 60° or 90°; 0° or 15° curve progression in the past 6 mo; normal or hyperkyphosis; flexible or rigid curve; respiratory impairment or no respiratory impairment; poor or normal nutritional status; chest wall involvement or no chest wall involvement   Conservative-surgical
 Hypertonic or hypotonic/myopathic; age of 3, 6, or 9 years; Cobb angle of 60° or 90°; 0°, 15°, 30° curve progression in the past 6 months; normal or hyperkyphosis; flexible or rigid curve; respiratory impairment or no respiratory impairment; poor or normal nutritional status; chest wall involvement or no chest wall involvement   No treatment preference
 Hypertonic or hypotonic/myopathic; age of 3, 6, or 9 years; Cobb angle of 30° or 60°; 0°, 15°, 30° curve progression in the past 6 months; normal or hyperkyphosis; flexible or rigid curve; respiratory impairment or no respiratory impairment; poor or normal nutritional status; chest wall involvement or no chest wall involvement   Observation-bracing
 Hypertonic; age of 6 years; Cobb angle of 60°; 0° or 15° curve progression in the past 6 months; normokyphosis; rigid curve; respiratory impairment; poor nutritional status; chest wall involvement   Observation-MCGR-Rib/Pelvis
 Hypertonic; age of 9 years; Cobb angle of 60° or 90°; 0° or 15° curve progression in the pst 6 months; hyperkyphosis; flexible or rigid curve; respiratory impairment or no respiratory impairment; poor or normal nutritional status; chest wall involvement or no chest wall involvement   Observation-Arthrodesis
 Hypertonic or hypotonic/myopathic; age of 9 years; Cobb angle of 60° or 90°; 0°, 15°, or 30° curve progression in the past 6 months; normal or hyperkyphosis; flexible curve; respiratory impairment; poor or normal nutritional status; chest wall involvement or no chest wall involvement   MCGR-Spine/Pelvis-arthrodesis
 Hypertonic; age of 6 years; Cobb angle of 90°; 0° curve progression in the past 6 months; normokyphosis; flexible curve; respiratory impairment; poor nutritional status; chest wall involvement   Rib-based-Spine-based Distraction
 Hypertonic or hypotonic/myopathic; age of 3, 6, or 9 years; Cobb angle of 30°, 60°, or 90°; 0°, 15°, 30° curve progression in the past 6 months; normal or hyperkyphosis; flexible or rigid curve; respiratory impairment or no respiratory impairment; poor or normal nutritional status; chest wall involvement or no chest wall involvement   Observation-intervention
 Hypertonic or hypotonic/myopathic; age of 6 or 9 yrs; Cobb angle of 60° or 90°; 0° or 15° curve progression in last 6 mo; normal or hyperkyphosis; flexible or rigid curve; respiratory impairment or no respiratory impairment; poor or normal nutritional status; chest wall involvement or no chest wall involvement   Observation-surgical
 Hypertonic or hypotonic/myopathic; age of 6 or 9 years; Cobb angle of 60°; 0° or 15° curve progression in the past 6 months; normokyphosis; flexible or rigid curve; respiratory impairment or no respiratory impairment; poor or normal nutritional status; chest wall involvement or no chest wall involvement   Observation-MCGR
  1. *In bold are characteristics specifying a subgroup of the variables presented

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Matsumoto, H., Fano, A.N., Quan, T. et al. Re-evaluating consensus and uncertainty among treatment options for early onset scoliosis: a 10-year update. Spine Deform (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s43390-022-00561-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s43390-022-00561-1

Keywords

  • Early onset scoliosis
  • Consensus
  • Uncertainty
  • Treatment options
  • 10 years