Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Influence of Cobb Angle and ISIS2 Surface Topography Volumetric Asymmetry on Scoliosis Research Society-22 Outcome Scores in Scoliosis

  • Published:
Spine Deformity Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Study Design

Retrospective sequential patient series.

Objectives

To establish the relationship between the magnitude of the deformity in scoliosis and patients’ perception of their condition, as measured with Scoliosis Research Society-22 scores.

Methodology

A total of 93 untreated patients with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis were included retrospectively. The Cobb angle was measured from a plain radiograph, and volumetric asymmetry was measured by ISIS2 surface topography. The association between Scoliosis Research Society scores for function, pain, self-image, and mental health against Cobb angle and volumetric asymmetry was investigated using the Pearson correlation coefficient.

Results

Correlation of both Cobb angle and volumetric asymmetry with function and pain was weak (all <.23); these correlation values were not statistically significant. Correlation of Cobb angle and volumetric asymmetry with self-image, was higher, although still moderate (-.37 for Cobb angle and -.44 for volumetric asymmetry). Both were statistically significant (Cobb angle, p =.0002; volumetric asymmetry; p =.00001). Cobb angle contributed 13.8% to the linear relationship with self-image, whereas volumetric asymmetry contributed 19.3%. For mental health, correlation was statistically significant with Cobb angle (p =.011) and volumetric asymmetry (p =.0005), but the correlation was low to moderate (-.26 and -.35, respectively). Cobb angle contributed 6.9% to the linear relationship with mental health, whereas volumetric asymmetry contributed 12.4%.

Conclusions

Volumetric asymmetry correlates better with both mental health and self-image compared with Cobb angle, but the correlation was only moderate. This study suggests that a patient’s own perception of self-image and mental health is multifactorial and not completely explained through present objective measurements of the size of the deformity. This helps to explain the difficulties in any objective analysis of a problem with multifactorial perception issues. Further study is required to investigate other physical aspects of the deformity that may have a role in how patients view themselves.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Cobb J. Outline for the study of scoliosis. AAOS Instr Course Lect 1948;5:261–75.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Aaro S, Dahlborn M. The longitudinal axis rotation of the apical vertebra, the vertebral, spinal, and rib cage deformity in idiopathic scoliosis studied by computer tomography. Spine 1981;6:567–72.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Burwell R, James N, Johnson F, et al. Standardised trunk asymmetry scores: a study of back contour in healthy school children. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1983;65:452–63.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Erkula G, Sponseller PD, Kiter AE. Rib deformity in scoliosis. Eur Spine J 2003;12:281–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Geissele AE, Ogilvie JW, Cohen M, et al. Thoracoplasty for the treatment of rib prominence in thoracic scoliosis. Spine 1994;19: 1636–42.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Thulbourne T, Gillespie R. The rib hump in idiopathic scoliosis: measurement, analysis and response to treatment. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1976;58:64–71.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Oxborrow N. Assessing the child with scoliosis: the role of surface topography. Arch Dis Child 2000;83:453–5.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Doody M, Lonstein JE, Stovall M, et al. Breast cancer mortality after diagnostic radiography: findings from the US Scoliosis Cohort Study. Spine 2000;25:2052–63.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Preston DL, Mattsson A, Holmberg E, et al. Radiation effects on breast cancer risk: a pooled analysis of eight cohorts. Radiat Res 2002;158:220–35.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Ronckers CM, Doody MM, Lonstein JE, et al. Multiple diagnostic X- rays for spine deformities and risk of breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res 2005;17:605–13.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Berryman F, Pynsent P, Fairbank J, et al. A new system for measuring three-dimensional back shape in scoliosis. Eur Spine J 2008;17: 663–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Frobin W, Hierholzer E. Video rasterstereography: a method for online measurement of body surfaces. Photogramm Eng Remote Sensing 1991;57:1341–5.

  13. Goldberg CJ, Kaliszer M, Moore DP, et al. Surface topography, Cobb angles, and cosmetic change in scoliosis. Spine 2001;26:E55–63.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Theologis TN, Fairbank JCT, Turner-Smith AR, et al. Early detection of progression in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis by measurement of changes in back shape with the integrated shape imaging system scanner. Spine 1997;22:1223–7.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Turner-Smith AR, Harris J, Houghton G, et al. A method for analysis of back shape in scoliosis. J Biomech 1988;21:497–509.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Labelle H, Aubin CE, Jackson R, et al. Seeing the spine in 3D: how will it change what we do? J Pediatr Orthoped 2011;31:S37–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Sangole AP, Aubin CE, Labelle H, et al. Three-dimensional classification of thoracic scoliotic curves. Spine 2009;34:91–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Smith F, Latchford G, Hall R, et al. Indications of disordered eating behaviour in adolescent patients with idiopathic scoliosis. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2002;84:392–4.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Payne III WK, Ogilvie JW, Resnick MD, et al. Does scoliosis have a psychological impact and does gender make a difference? Spine 1997;22:1380–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Haher TR, Gorup JM, Shin TM, et al. Results of the Scoliosis Research Society instrument for evaluation of surgical outcome in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: a multicenter study of 244 patients. Spine 1999;24:1435–40.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Asher M, Min Lai S, Burton D, et al. The reliability and concurrent validity of the scoliosis research society-22 patient questionnaire for idiopathic scoliosis. Spine 2003;28:63–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Asher M, Min Lai S, Burton D, et al. Discrimination validity of the scoliosis research society-22 patient questionnaire: relationship to idiopathic scoliosis curve pattern and curve size. Spine 2003;28:74–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Asher M, Min Lai S, Burton D, et al. Scoliosis Research Society-22 patient questionnaire: responsiveness to change associated with surgical treatment. Spine 2003;28:70–3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Asher MA, Min Lai S, Burton DC. Further development and validation of the Scoliosis Research Society (SRS) outcomes instrument. Spine 2000;25:2381–6.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Asher M, Min Lai S, Burton DC, et al. The influence of spine and trunk deformity on preoperative idiopathic scoliosis patients’ health-related quality of life questionnaire responses. Spine 2004;29:861–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Parent EC, Hill D, Mahood J, et al. Discriminative and predictive validity of the Scoliosis Research Society-22 Questionnaire in management and curve-severity subgroups of adolescents with idiopathic scoliosis. Spine 2009;34:2450–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Inami K, Suzuki N, Ono T, et al. Analysis of posterior trunk symmetry index (POTSI) in scoliosis: part 2. In: Stokes IAF, editor. Research into spinal deformities 2. Amsterdam: IOS Press; 1999. p. 85—8.

  28. Suzuki N, Inami K, Ono T, et al. Analysis of posterior trunk symmetry index (POTSI) in scoliosis: part 1. In: Stokes IAF, editor. Research into spinal deformities 2. Amsterdam: IOS Press; 1999. p. 81—4.

  29. Suzuki N, Ono T, Tezuka M, et al. Moire topography and back shape analysis: clinical application. In: Dansereau J, editor. International symposium on 3-D scoliotic deformity. Montreal: Fisher Verlag; 1992. p. 124–30.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Berryman F, Pynsent P, Fairbank J. Variability in transverse volumetric asymmetry measurements in ISIS2. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2009;91(SUPP III):484.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Jackson SL. Research methods and statistics: a critical thinking approach. 4th ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth; 2011. p69.

    Google Scholar 

  32. R Development Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation or statistical computing. Available: http://www.R-project.org; 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  33. D’Andrea LP, Betz RR, Lenke LG, et al. Do radiographic parameters correlate with clinical outcomes in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis? Spine 2000;25:1795–802.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Helenius I, Remes V, Yrjonen T, et al. Comparison of long-term functional and radiologic outcomes after Harrington instrumentation and spondylodesis in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: a review of 78 patients. Spine 2002;27:176–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Rinella A, Lenke L, Peelle M, et al. Comparison of SRS questionnaire results submitted by both parents and patients in the operative treatment of idiopathic scoliosis. Spine 2004;29:303–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. White SF, Asher MA, Lai SM, et al. Patients’ perceptions of overall function, pain, and appearance after primary posterior instrumentation and fusion for idiopathic scoliosis. Spine 1999;24: 1693–700.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Tones M, Moss N, Polly Jr DW. A review of quality of life and psychosocial issues in scoliosis. Spine 2006;31:3027–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Watanabe K, Hasegawa K, Hirano T, et al. Use of the Scoliosis Research Society outcomes instrument to evaluate patient outcome in untreated idiopathic scoliosis patients in Japan. Part II: relation between spinal deformity and patient outcomes. Spine 2005;30: 1202–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Clayson D, Mahon B, Levine DB. Preoperative personality characteristics as predictors of postoperative physical and psychological patterns in scoliosis. Spine 1981;6:9–12.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Spinal Deformity Unit, Royal Orthopaedic Hospital, Northfield, Birmingham, B31 2AP, UK

    Paul Brewer BSc, MBChB, Fiona Berryman BSc, PhD, De Baker RGN, MSc, Paul Pynsent BSc, PhD & Adrian Gardner BM MRCS, FRCS (T&O)

Authors
  1. Paul Brewer BSc, MBChB
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Fiona Berryman BSc, PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. De Baker RGN, MSc
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Paul Pynsent BSc, PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Adrian Gardner BM MRCS, FRCS (T&O)
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Adrian Gardner BM MRCS, FRCS (T&O).

Additional information

Author disclosures: PB (none); FB (salary paid from a grant from Smith & Nephew on hip joints); DB (none); PP (grant from Smith & Nephew; royalties from Books Editor); AG (consultancy for Medtronic; expert testimony for medicolegal practice—AC Gardner Ltd; payment for lectures including service on speakers bureaus from Medtronic, DePuy Synthes Spine; payment for development of educational presentations from Medtronic; travel/accommodations/meeting expenses from Medtronic).

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Brewer, P., Berryman, F., Baker, D. et al. Influence of Cobb Angle and ISIS2 Surface Topography Volumetric Asymmetry on Scoliosis Research Society-22 Outcome Scores in Scoliosis. Spine Deform 1, 452–457 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jspd.2013.07.012

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jspd.2013.07.012

Keywords

Search

Navigation