Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Outcome instruments to assess scoliosis surgery

  • Review Article
  • Published:
European Spine Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

To review and summarize the current knowledge regarding the outcome measures used to evaluate scoliosis surgery.

Methods

Literature review.

Results

Outcome instruments should be tested to ensure that they have adequate metric characteristics: content and construct validity, reliability, and responsiveness. In the evaluation of scoliosis, generic instruments to assess health-related quality of life (HRQL) have been used, such as the SF-36 questionnaire and the EuroQol5D instrument. Nonetheless, it is preferable to use disease-specific instruments for this purpose, such as the SRS-22 Patient Questionnaire and the quality of life profile for spinal deformities (QLPSD). More recently, these generic and disease-specific instruments have been complemented with the use of super-specific instruments; i.e., those assessing a single aspect of the condition or specific populations with the condition. The patients’ perception of their trunk deformity and body image has received particular attention, and several instruments are available to evaluate these aspects, such as the Walter-Reed Visual Assessment Scale (WRVAS), the Spinal Appearance Questionnaire (SAQ), and the Trunk Appearance Perception Scale (TAPS). The impacts of brace use can also be measured with specific scales, including the Bad Sobernheim Stress Questionnaire (BSSQ) and the Brace Questionnaire (BrQ). The available instruments to evaluate the treatment for non-idiopathic scoliosis have not been sufficiently validated and analyzed.

Conclusions

Evaluation of scoliosis treatment should include the patient’s perspective, which can be obtained with the use of patient-reported outcome measures.

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. Greenhalgh J (2009) The applications of PROs in clinical practice: what are they, do they work, and why? Qual Life Res 18:115–123

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Jaeschke R, Guyatt G (1990) How to develop and validate a new quality of life instrument. In: Spilker B (ed) Quality of life assessments in clinical trials. Raven Press, New York, pp 47–57

    Google Scholar 

  3. US Department of Health and Human Services. Food and Drug Administration. Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER). Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER). Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH) (2009) Guidance for industry. Patient-reported outcome measures: use in medical product development to support labeling claims [Internet]. Available from http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/UCM193282.pdf

  4. Streiner D, Norman G (2008) Health measurement scales: a practical guide to their development and use. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  5. Copay AG, Subach BR, Glassman SD, Polly DW, Schuler TC (2007) Understanding the minimum clinically important difference: a review of concepts and methods. Spine J 7:541–546

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Moskowitz A, Moe JH, Winter RB, Binner H (1980) Long-term follow-up of scoliosis fusion. J Bone Joint Surg Am 62:364–376

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Dickson JH, Erwin WD, Rossi D (1990) Harrington instrumentation and arthrodesis for idiopathic scoliosis. A twenty-one-year follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Am 72:678–683

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Goldberg MS, Mayo NE, Poitras B, Scott S, Hanley J (1994) The Ste-Justine Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis Cohort Study. Part II: perception of health, self and body image, and participation in physical activities. Spine 19:1562–1572

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Ware J, Sherbourne C (1992) The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care 30:473–483

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Euroqol Group (1990) EuroQol. A new facility for the measurement of health related quality of life. Health Policy 16:199–208

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Padua R, Ceccarelli E, Aulisa AG, Pitta L, Aulisa L (2002) Outcome of Harrington surgery for idiopathic scoliosis. SF-36 and Roland questionnaires assessment. Stud Health Technol Inform 88:404

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Götze C, Liljenqvist UR, Slomka A, Götze HG, Steinbeck J (2002) Quality of life and back pain: outcome 16.7 years after Harrington instrumentation. Spine 27:1456–1463 (discussion 1463)

    Google Scholar 

  13. Andersen MO, Christensen SB, Thomsen K (2006) Outcome at 10 years after treatment for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Spine 31:350–354

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Takayama K, Nakamura H, Matsuda H (2009) Quality of life in patients treated surgically for scoliosis: longer than sixteen-year follow-up. Spine 34:2179–2184

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Danielsson AJ, Hasserius R, Ohlin A, Nachemson AL (2010) Health-related quality of life in untreated versus brace-treated patients with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: a long-term follow-up. Spine 35:199–205

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Solberg TK, Olsen JA, Ingebrigtsen T, Hofoss D, Nygaard OP (2005) Health-related quality of life assessment by the EuroQol-5D can provide cost-utility data in the field of low-back surgery. Eur Spine J 14:1000–1007

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Tosteson ANA, Tosteson TD, Lurie JD, Abdu W, Herkowitz H, Andersson G et al (2011) Comparative effectiveness evidence from the spine patient outcomes research trial: surgical versus nonoperative care for spinal stenosis, degenerative spondylolisthesis, and intervertebral disc herniation. Spine 36:2061–2068

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Climent JM, Reig A, Sanchez J, Roda C (1995) Construction and validation of a specific quality of life instrument for adolescents with spine deformities. Spine 20:2006–2011

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Howard A, Donaldson S, Hedden D, Stephens D, Alman B, Wright J (2007) Improvement in quality of life following surgery for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Spine 32:2715–2718

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Pham VM, Houlliez A, Carpentier A, Herbaux B, Schill A, Thevenon A (2008) Determination of the influence of the Chêneau brace on quality of life for adolescent with idiopathic scoliosis. Ann Readapt Med Phys 51:3–8

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Climent JM, Sanchez J (1999) Impact of the type of brace on the quality of life of adolescents with spine deformities. Spine 24:1903–1908

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Haher TR, Gorup JM, Shin TM, Homel P, Merola AA, Grogan DP et al (1999) Results of the Scoliosis Research Society instrument for evaluation of surgical outcome in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. A multicenter study of 244 patients. Spine 24:1435–1440

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Asher MA, Lai SM, Burton D, Manna B (2003) The reliability and concurrent validity of the scoliosis research society-22 patient questionnaire for idiopathic scoliosis. Spine 28:63–69

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Asher MA, Lai SM, Burton D, Manna B (2003) Scoliosis research society-22 patient questionnaire: responsiveness to change associated with surgical treatment. Spine 28:70–73

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Asher MA, Lai SM, Burton D, Manna B (2003) Discrimination validity of the scoliosis research society-22 patient questionnaire: relationship to idiopathic scoliosis curve pattern and curve size. Spine 28:74–78

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Bridwell KH, Cats-Baril W, Harrast J, Berven S, Glassman S, Farcy JP et al (2005) The validity of the SRS-22 instrument in an adult spinal deformity population compared with the Oswestry and SF-12: a study of response distribution, concurrent validity, internal consistency, and reliability. Spine 30:455–461

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Climent JM, Bago J, Ey A, Perez-Grueso F, Izquierdo E (2005) Validity of the Spanish version of the Scoliosis Research Society-22 (SRS-22) patient questionnaire. Spine 30:705–709

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Asher MA, Lai SM, Glattes RC, Burton DC, Alanay A, Bago J (2006) Refinement of the SRS-22 health-related quality of life questionnaire function domain. Spine 31:593–597

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Bago J, Climent JM, Ey A, Perez-Grueso FJ, Izquierdo E (2004) The Spanish version of the SRS-22 patient questionnaire for idiopathic scoliosis: transcultural adaptation and reliability analysis. Spine 29:1676–1680

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Alanay A, Cil A, Berk H, Acaroglu RE, Yazici M, Akcali O et al (2005) Reliability and validity of adapted Turkish Version of Scoliosis Research Society-22 (SRS-22) questionnaire. Spine 30:2464–2468

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Hashimoto H, Sase T, Arai Y, Maruyama T, Isobe K, Shouno Y (2007) Validation of a Japanese version of the Scoliosis Research Society-22 Patient Questionnaire among idiopathic scoliosis patients in Japan. Spine 32:E141–E146

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Bunge EM, Juttmann RE, de Kleuver M, van Biezen FC, de Koning HJ, NESCIO group (2007) Health-related quality of life in patients with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis after treatment: short-term effects after brace or surgical treatment. Eur Spine J 16:83–89

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Glowacki M, Misterska E, Laurentowska M, Mankowski P (2009) Polish adaptation of Scoliosis Research Society-22 questionnaire. Spine 34:1060–1065

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Niemeyer T, Schubert C, Halm HF, Herberts T, Leichtle C, Gesicki M (2009) Validity and reliability of an adapted German version of Scoliosis Research Society-22 questionnaire. Spine 34:818–821

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Beauséjour M, Joncas J, Goulet L, Roy-Beaudry M, Parent S, Grimard G et al (2009) Reliability and validity of adapted French Canadian version of Scoliosis Research Society Outcomes Questionnaire (SRS-22) in Quebec. Spine 34:623–628

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Antonarakos PD, Katranitsa L, Angelis L, Paganas A, Koen EM, Christodoulou EA et al (2009) Reliability and validity of the adapted Greek version of Scoliosis Research Society-22 (SRS-22) questionnaire. Scoliosis 4:14

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Monticone M, Baiardi P, Calabrò D, Calabrò F, Foti C (2010) Development of the Italian version of the revised Scoliosis Research Society-22 Patient Questionnaire, SRS-22r-I: cross-cultural adaptation, factor analysis, reliability, and validity. Spine 35:E1412–E1417

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Mousavi SJ, Mobini B, Mehdian H, Akbarnia B, Bouzari B, Askary-Ashtiani A et al (2010) Reliability and validity of the Persian version of the Scoliosis Research Society-22r questionnaire. Spine 35:784–789

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Lee JS, Lee DH, Suh KT, Kim JI, Lim JM, Goh TS (2011) Validation of the Korean version of the Scoliosis Research Society-22 questionnaire. Eur Spine J 20:1751–1756

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Leelapattana P, Keorochana G, Johnson J, Wajanavisit W, Laohacharoensombat W (2011) Reliability and validity of an adapted Thai version of the Scoliosis Research Society-22 questionnaire. J Child Orthop 5:35–40

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Carriço G, Meves R, Avanzi O (2012) Cross-cultural adaptation and validity of an adapted Brazilian Portuguese version of Scoliosis Research Society-30 questionnaire. Spine 37:E60–E63

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Lai SM, Burton DC, Asher MA, Carlson BB (2011) Converting SRS-24, SRS-23, and SRS-22 to SRS-22r: establishing conversion equations using regression modeling. Spine 36:E1525–E1533

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Bagó J, Pérez-Grueso FJS, Les E, Hernández P, Pellisé F (2009) Minimal important differences of the SRS-22 Patient Questionnaire following surgical treatment of idiopathic scoliosis. Eur Spine J 18:1898–1904

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Carreon LY, Sanders JO, Diab M, Sucato DJ, Sturm PF, Glassman SD et al (2010) The minimum clinically important difference in Scoliosis Research Society-22 Appearance, Activity, and Pain domains after surgical correction of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Spine 35:2079–2083

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Verma K, Lonner B, Hoashi JS, Lafage V, Dean L, Engel I et al (2010) Demographic factors affect Scoliosis Research Society-22 performance in healthy adolescents: a comparative baseline for adolescents with idiopathic scoliosis. Spine 35:2134–2139

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Baldus C, Bridwell K, Harrast J, Shaffrey C, Ondra S, Lenke L et al (2011) The Scoliosis Research Society Health-Related Quality of Life (SRS-30) age-gender normative data: an analysis of 1346 adult subjects unaffected by scoliosis. Spine 36:1154–1162

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Sanders JO, Polly DW, Cats-Baril W, Jones J, Lenke LG, O’Brien MF et al (2003) Analysis of patient and parent assessment of deformity in idiopathic scoliosis using the Walter Reed Visual Assessment Scale. Spine 28:2158–2163

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Sanders JO, Harrast JJ, Kuklo TR, Polly DW, Bridwell KH, Diab M et al (2007) The Spinal Appearance Questionnaire: results of reliability, validity, and responsiveness testing in patients with idiopathic scoliosis. Spine 32:2719–2722

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Carreon LY, Sanders JO, Polly DW, Sucato DJ, Parent S, Roy-Beaudry M et al (2011) Spinal appearance questionnaire: factor analysis, scoring, reliability, and validity testing. Spine 36:E1240–E1244

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Bago J, Climent JM, Pineda S, Gilperez C (2007) Further evaluation of the Walter Reed Visual Assessment Scale: correlation with curve pattern and radiological deformity. Scoliosis 2:12

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Mulcahey MJ, Chafetz RS, Santangelo AM, Costello K, Merenda LA, Calhoun C et al (2011) Cognitive testing of the spinal appearance questionnaire with typically developing youth and youth with idiopathic scoliosis. J Pediatr Orthop 31:661–667

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Bago J, Sanchez-Raya J, Perez-Grueso FJS, Climent JM (2010) The Trunk Appearance Perception Scale (TAPS): a new tool to evaluate subjective impression of trunk deformity in patients with idiopathic scoliosis. Scoliosis 5:6

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Botens-Helmus C, Klein R, Stephan C (2006) The reliability of the Bad Sobernheim Stress Questionnaire (BSSQbrace) in adolescents with scoliosis during brace treatment. Scoliosis 1:22

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Misterska E, Głowacki M, Harasymczuk J (2009) Polish adaptation of Bad Sobernheim Stress Questionnaire-Brace and Bad Sobernheim Stress Questionnaire-Deformity. Eur Spine J 18:1911–1919

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Aulisa AG, Guzzanti V, Perisano C, Marzetti E, Specchia A, Galli M et al (2010) Determination of quality of life in adolescents with idiopathic scoliosis subjected to conservative treatment. Scoliosis 5:21

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. D’Agata E, Testor CP, Rigo M (2010) Spanish validation of Bad Sobernheim Stress Questionnaire (BSSQ (brace).es) for adolescents with braces. Scoliosis 5:15

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Vasiliadis E, Grivas TB, Gkoltsiou K (2006) The quality of life among children with idiopathic scoliosis during their adolescence has been reported to be affected by the brace itself. Scoliosis 1:7

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Rivett L, Rothberg A, Stewart A, Berkowitz R (2009) The relationship between quality of life and compliance to a brace protocol in adolescents with idiopathic scoliosis: a comparative study. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 10:5

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Corona J, Matsumoto H, Roye DP, Vitale MG (2011) Measuring quality of life in children with early onset scoliosis: development and initial validation of the early onset scoliosis questionnaire. J Pediatr Orthop 31:180–185

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Watanabe K, Lenke LG, Daubs MD, Watanabe K, Bridwell KH, Stobbs G et al (2009) Is spine deformity surgery in patients with spastic cerebral palsy truly beneficial?: a patient/parent evaluation. Spine 34:2222–2232

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Bridwell KH, Baldus C, Iffrig TM, Lenke LG, Blanke K (1999) Process measures and patient/parent evaluation of surgical management of spinal deformities in patients with progressive flaccid neuromuscular scoliosis (Duchenne’s muscular dystrophy and spinal muscular atrophy). Spine 24:1300–1309

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  62. Larsson ELC, Aaro SI, Normelli HCM, Oberg BE (2005) Long-term follow-up of functioning after spinal surgery in patients with neuromuscular scoliosis. Spine 30:2145–2152

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Jones KB, Sponseller PD, Shindle MK, McCarthy ML (2003) Longitudinal parental perceptions of spinal fusion for neuromuscular spine deformity in patients with totally involved cerebral palsy. J Pediatr Orthop 23:143–149

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Matsumoto H, Vitale MG, Hyman JE, Roye DP (2011) Can parents rate their children’s quality of life? Perspectives on pediatric orthopedic outcomes. J pediatr orthop B 20:184–190

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Kamper SJ, Ostelo RWJG, Knol DL, Maher CG, de Vet HCW, Hancock MJ (2010) Global Perceived Effect scales provided reliable assessments of health transition in people with musculoskeletal disorders, but ratings are strongly influenced by current status. J Clin Epidemiol 63:760–766

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Yadla S, Maltenfort MG, Ratliff JK, Harrop JS (2010) Adult scoliosis surgery outcomes: a systematic review. Neurosurg Focus 28:E3

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

None of the authors has any potential conflict of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Hospital Vall d’Hebron, Pº Vall d’Hebron, 119, 08035, Barcelona, Spain

    Juan Bagó & Ferran Pellisé

  2. Department of Rehabilitation and Physical Medicine, Alicante University General Hospital, Alicante, Spain

    Jose Ma Climent

  3. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Hospital Universitario La Paz, Madrid, Spain

    Francisco J. S. Pérez-Grueso

Authors
  1. Juan Bagó
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jose Ma Climent
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Francisco J. S. Pérez-Grueso
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Ferran Pellisé
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Juan Bagó.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Bagó, J., Climent, J.M., Pérez-Grueso, F.J.S. et al. Outcome instruments to assess scoliosis surgery. Eur Spine J 22 (Suppl 2), 195–202 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-012-2352-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-012-2352-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation