Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

A 5-year follow-up of the effect of corrective surgery in young adults with idiopathic scoliosis

  • Case Series
  • Published:
Spine Deformity Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to determine mid-long-term outcomes (5 years) following surgery for young adult idiopathic scoliosis (YAdIS).

Methods

This is a retrospective review of a prospective, multicenter adult deformity database including patients operated on idiopathic scoliosis by a single posterior approach, age at surgery between 19 and 29 (considered young adults), and 5-year follow-up. Demographic, radiographic and PROMS were analyzed preoperatively, at 2 years and at final follow-up.

Results

Forty-two patients were included. Mean preoperative major curve angle was 59.65 ± 18.94. Main coronal curve initial correction was 56.38%, with 6% loss at 5 years. From baseline to 5 years after surgery, there was improvement in all PROMs (P < 0.004)—especially self-image-, except NRS-leg pain. This improvement was present at 6 months for all PROMs except for functional outcomes (SRS-Function and ODI) in which the improvement took place between 6 months and 2 years. In the 2- to 5-year follow-up period, no significant changes were seen in any PROMs. The percentage of patients reaching MCID from baseline at 5 years was: 75% for SRS-image, 45% for SRS-pain, 47.5% for SRS-function, 51.3% for SRS-mental, 42.5% for SRS-total and 15.4% for ODI. Patients reaching PASS at 5 years were: 88.1% for SRS-image, 81% for SRS-pain, 92.9% for SRS-function, 57.1% for SRS-mental, 88.1% for SRS-total, 92.7% for ODI and 69% for NRS pain. 11 minor and 4 major complications were identified.

Conclusion

YAdIS surgery resulted in an early and significant improvement in PROMs, especially for self-image, significantly reaching MCID and PASS thresholds. These results were maintained during long-term (5-year) follow-up.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author, [A G-R], upon reasonable request.

References

  1. Bridwell KH (1999) Surgical treatment of idiopathic adolescent scoliosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 24:2607–2616. https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-199912150-0000

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Lim JL, Hey HWD, Kumar N et al (2020) A 10-year radiographic study comparing anterior versus posterior instrumented spinal fusion in patients with lenke type 5 adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 45:612–620. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000003331

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Lonstein JE (2018) Selective thoracic fusion for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: long-term radiographic and functional outcomes. Spine Deform 6:669–675. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jspd.2018.04.008

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Darnis A, Grobost P, Roussouly P (2021) Very long-term clinical and radiographic outcomes after posterior spinal fusion with pedicular screws for thoracic adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Spine Deform 9:441–449. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43390-020-00217-y9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Kurra S, DeMercurio P, Lavelle WF (2022) Comparison of operative implications between adolescent and young adult idiopathic scoliosis patients from scoliosis research society mortality and morbidity database. Spine Deform. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43390-022-00515-7. (Published online ahead of print, 2022 May 24)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Zhu F, Bao H, Yan P et al (2017) Comparison of surgical outcome of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis and young adult idiopathic scoliosis: a match-pair analysis of 160 patients. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 42:E1133–E1139. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000002106

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Lavelle W, Kurra S, Hu X, Lieberman I (2020) Clinical outcomes of idiopathic scoliosis surgery: is there a difference between young adult patients and adolescent patients? Cureus. 12:e8118. https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.8118. (Published 2020 May 14)

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Chan CYW, Gani SMA, Chung WH, Chiu CK, Hasan MS, Kwan MKA (2021) Comparison between the perioperative outcomes of female adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) versus adult idiopathic scoliosis (AdIS) following posterior spinal fusion: a propensity score matching analysis involving 425 patients. Global Spine J. https://doi.org/10.1177/2192568221991510. (Published online ahead of print, 2021 Mar 2)

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Zuckerman SL, Cerpa M, Lenke LG et al (2021) Patient-reported outcomes after complex adult spinal deformity surgery: 5-year results of the scoli-risk-1 study. Global Spine J. https://doi.org/10.1177/2192568220988276. (Published online ahead of print, 2021 Feb 9)

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Crawford CH 3rd, Glassman SD, Bridwell KH, Berven SH, Carreon LY (2015) The minimum clinically important difference in SRS-22R total score, appearance, activity and pain domains after surgical treatment of adult spinal deformity. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 40:377–381. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000000761

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Kelly MP, Lurie JD, Yanik EL et al (2019) Operative versus nonoperative treatment for adult symptomatic lumbar scoliosis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 101:338–352. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.18.00483

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Liu S, Diebo BG, Henry JK et al (2016) The benefit of nonoperative treatment for adult spinal deformity: identifying predictors for reaching a minimal clinically important difference. Spine J 16:210–218. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2015.10.043

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Copay AG, Glassman SD, Subach BR, Berven S, Schuler TC, Carreon LY (2008) Minimum clinically important difference in lumbar spine surgery patients: a choice of methods using the Oswestry disability index, medical outcomes study questionnaire Short Form 36, and pain scales. Spine J 8:968–974. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2007.11.006

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Yuksel S, Ayhan S, Nabiyev V et al (2019) Minimum clinically important difference of the health-related quality of life scales in adult spinal deformity calculated by latent class analysis: is it appropriate to use the same values for surgical and nonsurgical patients? Spine J 19:71–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2018.07.005

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Mannion AF, Loibl M, Bago J et al (2020) What level of symptoms are patients with adult spinal deformity prepared to live with? A cross-sectional analysis of the 12-month follow-up data from 1043 patients. Eur Spine J 29:1340–1352. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-020-06365-z

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Schwab F, Blondel B, Chay E et al (2014) The comprehensive anatomical spinal osteotomy classification. Neurosurgery 74:112–120. https://doi.org/10.1227/NEU.0000000000000182o

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Faldini C, Barile F, Perna F et al (2021) Hi-PoAD technique for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis in adult: personal case series. Eur Spine J 30:3509–3516. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-021-06897-y

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Chan A, Parent E, Wong J, Narvacan K, San C, Lou E (2020) Does image guidance decrease pedicle screw-related complications in surgical treatment of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: a systematic review update and meta-analysis. Eur Spine J 29:694–716. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-019-06219-3

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Sultan AA, Berger RJ, Cantrell WA et al (2019) Predictors of extended length of hospital stay in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis patients undergoing posterior segmental instrumented fusion: an analysis of 407 surgeries performed at a large academic center. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 44:715–722. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000002919

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Lehman RA Jr, Lenke LG, Keeler KA et al (2008) Operative treatment of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis with posterior pedicle screw-only constructs: minimum three-year follow-up of one hundred fourteen cases. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 33:1598–1604. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e318178872a

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Helenius L, Diarbakerli E, Grauers A et al (2019) Back pain and quality of life after surgical treatment for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis at 5-year follow-up: comparison with healthy controls and patients with untreated idiopathic scoliosis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 101:1460–1466. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.18.01370

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Anari JB, Tatad A, Cahill PJ, Flynn JM, Harms Study Group (2020) The impact of posterior spinal fusion (PSF) on coronal balance in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS): a new classification and trends in the postoperative period. J Pediatr Orthop 40:e788–e793. https://doi.org/10.1097/BPO.0000000000001622

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Zhou S, Xu F, Wang W, Zou D, Sun Z, Li W (2020) Age-based normal sagittal alignment in Chinese asymptomatic adults: establishment of the relationships between pelvic incidence and other parameters. Eur Spine J 29:396–404. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-019-06178-9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Pan C, Wang G, Li Y, Kuang L, Sun J, Lv G (2021) Predictive model of global tilt (GT) determined by individual thoracic kyphosis, lumbar lordosis and pelvic incidence in the human degenerative spine. Eur Spine J 30:3191–3199. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-021-06947-5

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Hwang SW, Samdani AF, Marks M et al (2013) Five-year clinical and radiographic outcomes using pedicle screw only constructs in the treatment of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Eur Spine J 22:1292–1299. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-012-2625-0

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Hicks GE, George SZ, Nevitt MA, Cauley JA, Vogt MT (2006) Measurement of lumbar lordosis: inter-rater reliability, minimum detectable change and longitudinal variation. J Spinal Disord Tech 19:501–506. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.bsd.0000210116.94273.ad

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Hwang CJ, Baik JM, Cho JH, Yoon SJ, Lee DH, Lee CS (2020) Posterior correction of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis with high-density pedicle screw-only constructs: 5 years of follow-up. Yonsei Med J 61:323–330. https://doi.org/10.3349/ymj.2020.61.4.323

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Blondel B, Lafage V, Schwab F, Farcy JP, Bollini G, Jouve JL (2012) Reciprocal sagittal alignment changes after posterior fusion in the setting of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Eur Spine J 21:1964–1971. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-012-2399-4

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Kyrölä K, Kautiainen H, Pekkanen L, Mäkelä P, Kiviranta I, Häkkinen A (2019) Long-term clinical and radiographic outcomes and patient satisfaction after adult spinal deformity correction. Scand J Surg 108:343–351. https://doi.org/10.1177/1457496918812201

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Terran J, McHugh BJ, Fischer CR et al (2014) Surgical treatment for adult spinal deformity: projected cost effectiveness at 5-year follow-up. Ochsner J 14:14–22

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Rushton PR, Grevitt MP (2013) What is the effect of surgery on the quality of life of the adolescent with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis? A review and statistical analysis of the literature. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 38:786–794. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e3182837c95

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Bastrom TP, Bartley C, Marks MC, Yaszay B, Newton PO, Harms Study Group (2015) Postoperative perfection: ceiling effects and lack of discrimination with both SRS-22 and -24 outcomes instruments in patients with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 40:E1323–E1329. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000001082

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Bess S, Boachie-Adjei O, Burton D et al (2009) Pain and disability determine treatment modality for older patients with adult scoliosis, while deformity guides treatment for younger patients. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 34:2186–2190. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181b05146

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Wick JB, Le HV, Lafage R et al (2022) Assessment of adult spinal deformity complication timing and impact on 2-year outcomes using a comprehensive adult spinal deformity classification system. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 47:445–454. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000004289

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to express their gratitude to Alfonso Muriel, biostatistician, for his help in statistical analysis of this study.

Funding

No funding were received for this study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Hospital Universitario Ramón y Cajal, Carretera de Colmenar Viejo Km 9, 100, 28034, Madrid, Spain

    Alejandro Gomez-Rice

  2. Vall d’Hebron Institut de Recerca, Barcelona, Spain

    María Capdevila-Bayo & Alba Vila-Casademunt

  3. Hospital Universitario Vall d’Hebron, Barcelona, Spain

    Susana Núñez-Pereira, Sleiman Haddad & Ferran Pellise

  4. Hospital Universitario La Paz, Madrid, Spain

    Franciso Pérez-Grueso & Javier Pizones

  5. Schulthess Klinik, Zurich, Switzerland

    Frank Kleinstück

  6. CHU Bordeaux, Bordeaux, France

    Ibrahim Obeid

  7. Acibadem Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey

    Ahmet Alanay

Authors
  1. Alejandro Gomez-Rice
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. María Capdevila-Bayo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Susana Núñez-Pereira
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Sleiman Haddad
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Alba Vila-Casademunt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Franciso Pérez-Grueso
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Frank Kleinstück
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Ibrahim Obeid
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Ahmet Alanay
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Ferran Pellise
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Javier Pizones
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Consortia

ESSG European Spine Study Group ESSG

Contributions

Substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work: AG-R, MC-B, SN-P, SH, AV-C, FP-G, FK, IO, AA, FP, JP, ESSG European Spine Study Group. Drafting the work or revising it critically for important intellectual content: AG-R, MC-B, SN-P, SH, AV-C, FP-G, FK, IO, AA, FP, JP, ESSG European Spine Study Group. Final approval of the version to be published: AG-R, MC-B, SN-P, SH, AV-C, FP-G, FK, IO, AA, FP, JP, ESSG European Spine Study Group. 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: AG-R, MC-B, SN-P, SH, AV-C, FP-G, FK, IO, AA, FP, JP, ESSG European Spine Study Group.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alejandro Gomez-Rice.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no financial or commercial conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

Institutional review board approval was obtained and all the patients signed a written consent.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

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

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) 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

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Gomez-Rice, A., Capdevila-Bayo, M., Núñez-Pereira, S. et al. A 5-year follow-up of the effect of corrective surgery in young adults with idiopathic scoliosis. Spine Deform 11, 605–615 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s43390-023-00642-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s43390-023-00642-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation