How much residual deformity is acceptable according to SRS-22r and satisfaction scores after posterior spinal fusion for Lenke type 1 and 2 curves in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis?

View More View Less
  • 1 Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Shinshu University School of Medicine, Matsumoto; and
  • | 2 Faculty of Textile Science and Technology, Shinshu University, Nagano, Japan
Restricted access

Purchase Now

USD  $45.00

Spine - 1 year subscription bundle (Individuals Only)

USD  $376.00

JNS + Pediatrics + Spine - 1 year subscription bundle (Individuals Only)

USD  $612.00
USD  $45.00
USD  $376.00
USD  $612.00
Print or Print + Online Sign in

OBJECTIVE

In recent years, it has become possible to predict postoperative correction and residual deformity in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) surgery based on the technique used and extent of fixation. However, the recommended degree of correction has not yet been established. In this study, the authors aimed to clarify the extent to which a residual postoperative deformity would be acceptable according to Scoliosis Research Society (SRS)–22r and satisfaction scores after AIS surgery.

METHODS

Overall, 92 patients who underwent posterior spinal fusion for Lenke type 1 or 2 AIS were retrospectively included. The Patient Acceptable Symptom State (PASS) cutoff values for each SRS-22r domain were calculated using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves to obtain predictive values of treatment satisfaction 2 years after surgery. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed with deformity parameters and demographic data as explanatory variables, and achieving the PASS cutoff value of each SRS-22r domain and treatment satisfaction were objective variables. Cutoff values were calculated using ROC analysis.

RESULTS

The PASS cutoff values for SRS-22r domains were 3.69 (area under the ROC curve [AUC] 0.86) for self-image, 4.25 (AUC 0.82) for mental health, and 4.22 (AUC 0.82) for the subtotal. The residual main thoracic Cobb angle was not remarkably related to SRS-22r or treatment satisfaction. The residual thoracolumbar/lumbar (TL/L) Cobb angle was significantly associated with treatment satisfaction, with a cutoff value of 12.5° (AUC 0.75). The parameters of deformity that were significantly associated with achieving the PASS cutoff value for self-image were the TL/L Cobb angle and main thoracic apical vertebral translation, although their respective AUCs were < 0.7.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with Lenke type 1 and 2 AIS, the residual postoperative TL/L Cobb angle was significantly associated with achieving the PASS cutoff values for self-image and treatment satisfaction. Satisfaction with treatment was more likely when the TL/L Cobb angle was ≤ 12.5°.

ABBREVIATIONS

AIS = adolescent idiopathic scoliosis; AUC = area under the ROC curve; AVT = apical vertebral translation; MT = main thoracic; PASS = patient acceptable symptom state; PRO = patient-reported outcome; ROC = receiver operating characteristic; SRS = Scoliosis Research Society; TL/L = thoracolumbar/lumbar.

Images from Zhou et al. (pp 274–282).

Spine - 1 year subscription bundle (Individuals Only)

USD  $376.00

JNS + Pediatrics + Spine - 1 year subscription bundle (Individuals Only)

USD  $612.00
USD  $376.00
USD  $612.00
  • 1

    Carreon LY, Sanders JO, Diab M, Sturm PF, Sucato DJ. Patient satisfaction after surgical correction of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2011;36(12):965968.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 2

    Tsutsui S, Pawelek J, Bastrom T, et al. Dissecting the effects of spinal fusion and deformity magnitude on quality of life in patients with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2009;34(18):E653E658.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 3

    Uehara M, Takahashi J, Ikegami S, et al. Determination of optimal screw number based on correction angle for main thoracic curve in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. J Orthop Sci. 2019;24(3):415419.

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 4

    Takahashi J, Newton PO, Ugrinow VL, Bastrom TP. Selective thoracic fusion in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: factors influencing the selection of the optimal lowest instrumented vertebra. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2011;36(14):11311141.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 5

    Carreon LY, Sanders JO, Diab M, Sucato DJ, Sturm PF, Glassman SD. The minimum clinically important difference in Scoliosis Research Society-22 appearance, activity, and pain domains after surgical correction of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2010;35(23):20792083.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 6

    Crawford CH III, Glassman SD, Bridwell KH, Berven SH, Carreon LY. 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). 2015;40(6):377381.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 7

    Azimi P, Yazdanian T, Benzel EC. Determination of minimally clinically important differences for JOABPEQ measure after discectomy in patients with lumbar disc herniation. J Spine Surg. 2018;4(1):102108.

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 8

    Hays RD, Woolley JM. The concept of clinically meaningful difference in health-related quality-of-life research. How meaningful is it? Pharmacoeconomics. 2000;18(5):419423.

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 9

    Kvien TK, Heiberg T, Hagen KB. Minimal clinically important improvement/difference (MCII/MCID) and patient acceptable symptom state (PASS): what do these concepts mean? Ann Rheum Dis. 2007;66(Suppl 3):iii40iii41.

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 10

    Fekete TF, Haschtmann D, Kleinstück FS, Porchet F, Jeszenszky D, Mannion AF. What level of pain are patients happy to live with after surgery for lumbar degenerative disorders?. Spine J. 2016;16 (4)(suppl):S12S18.

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 11

    Mannion AF, Loibl M, Bago J, et al. 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. 2020;29(6):13401352.

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 12

    Okoroha KR, Beck EC, Nwachukwu BU, Kunze KN, Nho SJ. Defining minimal clinically important difference and patient acceptable symptom state after isolated endoscopic gluteus medius repair. Am J Sports Med. 2019;47(13):31413147.

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 13

    Fawcett T. An introduction to ROC analysis. Pattern Recognit Lett. 2006;27(8):861874.

  • 14

    Asher M, Min Lai S, Burton D, Manna B. Scoliosis Research Society-22 patient questionnaire: responsiveness to change associated with surgical treatment. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2003;28(1):7073.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 15

    Ghandehari H, Mahabadi MA, Mahdavi SM, Shahsavaripour A, Seyed Tari HV, Safdari F. Evaluation of patient outcome and satisfaction after surgical treatment of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis using Scoliosis Research Society-30. Arch Bone Jt Surg. 2015;3(2):109113.

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 16

    Wilson PL, Newton PO, Wenger DR, et al. A multicenter study analyzing the relationship of a standardized radiographic scoring system of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis and the Scoliosis Research Society outcomes instrument. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2002;27(18):20362040.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 17

    Merola AA, Haher TR, Brkaric M, et al. A multicenter study of the outcomes of the surgical treatment of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis using the Scoliosis Research Society (SRS) outcome instrument. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2002;27(18):20462051.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 18

    Parent EC, Wong D, Hill D, et al. The association between Scoliosis Research Society-22 scores and scoliosis severity changes at a clinically relevant threshold. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2010;35(3):315322.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 19

    Haefeli M, Elfering A, Kilian R, Min K, Boos N. Nonoperative treatment for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: a 10- to 60-year follow-up with special reference to health-related quality of life. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2006;31(3):355367.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 20

    Mimura T, Ikegami S, Kuraishi S, et al. Residual thoracolumbar/lumbar curve is related to self-image after posterior spinal fusion for Lenke 1 and 2 curves in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis patients. J Neurosurg Pediatr. 2020;26(2):211216.

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 21

    Larson AN, Fletcher ND, Daniel C, Richards BS. Lumbar curve is stable after selective thoracic fusion for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: a 20-year follow-up. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2012;37(10):833839.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 22

    Newton PO, Upasani VV, Bastrom TP, Marks MC. The deformity-flexibility quotient predicts both patient satisfaction and surgeon preference in the treatment of Lenke 1B or 1C curves for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2009;34(10):10321039.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 23

    Albayrak A, Buyuk AF, Ucpunar H, Balioglu MB, Kargin D, Kaygusuz MA. Pre- and postoperative photographs and surgical outcomes in patients with Lenke type 1 adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2015;40(7):469474.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 24

    Theologis AA, Crawford M, Diab M. Ethnic variation in satisfaction and appearance concerns in adolescents with idiopathic scoliosis undergoing posterior spinal fusion with instrumentation. Spine Deform. 2018;6(2):148155.

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 399 399 60
Full Text Views 95 95 46
PDF Downloads 91 91 29
EPUB Downloads 0 0 0