Prospective Comparison of Flexibility Radiographs in Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis

Study Design. A prospective evaluation of radiographs in patients undergoing anterior spinal fusion or posterior spinal fusion for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Objective. To determine the most effective preoperative radiographic method for evaluating coronal plane flexibility by comparing preoperative and postoperative correction. Summary of Background Data. Curve flexibility is traditionally evaluated with side-bending radiographs. Recently, the fulcrum-bending radiograph was shown to provide better correction of thoracic curves undergoing posterior spinal fusion but was not evaluated in thoracolumbar/lumbar curves or in patients undergoing anterior spinal fusion. Methods. Preoperative coronal radiographs of 46 consecutive patients undergoing spinal fusion for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis obtained while standing, lying supine, side-bending (maximally bending while supine), push-prone (padded bolsters applied to chest wall while prone), and fulcrum-bending (curve apex suspended over a radiolucent fulcrum while lateral) were compared with standing postoperative radiographs. Cobb angles were determined and evaluated for statistical significance. Results. The fulcrum-bending radiograph demonstrated statistically better correction than other preoperative methods for main thoracic curves (P < 0.01) but fell short of demonstrating the correction obtained surgically. There was no statistical difference between side-bending, fulcrum-bending, or postoperative correction for thoracolumbar/lumbar curves (all P values > 0.07). The left side-bending was the most effective method for reducing upper thoracic curves (P < 0.001). There was no difference in the results obtained for curves corrected by anterior spinal fusion or anterior spinal fusion. Conclusion. To achieve maximal preoperative correction, thoracic fulcrum-bending radiographs should be obtained for evaluating main thoracic curves, whereas side-bending radiographs should continue to be used for evaluating both upper thoracic and thoracolumbar/lumbar curves.

[1]  J. Moe.  Methods of correction and surgical techniques in scoliosis. , 1972, The Orthopedic clinics of North America.

[2]  Moe Jh.  Methods of correction and surgical techniques in scoliosis. , 1972 .

[3]  M M Panjabi,et al.  The clinical biomechanics of scoliosis. , 1976, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[4]  E. C. Gregg,et al.  Risks of exposure to X-rays in patients undergoing long-term treatment for scoliosis. , 1979, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[5]  R A Dickson,et al.  A method for minimizing the radiation exposure from scoliosis radiographs. , 1981, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[6]  E. Bleck,et al.  The radiographic assessment of spinal flexibility in scoliosis: a study of the efficacy of the prone push film. , 1982, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[7]  R. Winter,et al.  The selection of fusion levels in thoracic idiopathic scoliosis. , 1983, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[8]  A. Schultz,et al.  Standing and Supine Cobb Measures in Girls with Idiopathic Scoliosis , 1985, Spine.

[9]  G. Duval-Beaupère,et al.  Flexibility of Scoliosis: What Does It Mean? Is This Terminology Appropriate? , 1985, Spine.

[10]  R. Winter,et al.  Adult idiopathic scoliosis treated by anterior and posterior spinal fusion. , 1987, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[11]  Wojcik As,et al.  An analysis of the effect of the Zielke operation on S-shaped curves in idiopathic scoliosis. A follow-up study revealing some skeletal and soft tissue factors involved in curve progression. , 1990 .

[12]  E. T. Jones,et al.  Choosing Fusion Levels in Progressive Thoracic Idiopathic Scoliosis , 1992, Spine.

[13]  R. McCall,et al.  Criteria for Selective Fusion in Idiopathic Scoliosis Using Cotrel‐Dubousset Instrumentation , 1992, Journal of pediatric orthopedics.

[14]  L. Lenke,et al.  Preventing Decompensation in King Type II Curves Treated With Cotrel‐Dubousset Instrumentation. Strict Guidelines for Selective Thoracic Fusion , 1992, Spine.

[15]  K. Bridwell,et al.  Surgical treatment of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: the basics and the controversies. , 1994, Spine.

[16]  I A Stokes,et al.  Surgical correction of vertebral axial rotation in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: prediction by lateral bending films. , 1996, Journal of spinal disorders.

[17]  R. Winter,et al.  Comparison of the Use of Supine Bending and Traction Radiographs in the Selection of the Fusion Area in Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis , 1996, Spine.

[18]  S Takahashi,et al.  Interpretation and Utility of Traction Radiography in Scoliosis Surgery: Analysis of Patients Treated With Cotrel‐Dubousset Instrumentation , 1997, Spine.

[19]  K. Cheung,et al.  Prediction of Correction of Scoliosis with Use of the Fulcrum Bending Radiograph* , 1997, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[20]  D. Polly,et al.  Traction Versus Supine Side Bending: Which Technique Best Determines Curve Flexibility? , 1998, Spine.

[21]  J C Leong,et al.  Assessment of Scoliosis Correction in Relation to Flexibility Using the Fulcrum Bending Correction Index , 1998, Spine.

[22]  L. Lenke,et al.  Comparison of Push-Prone and Lateral-Bending Radiographs for Predicting Postoperative Coronal Alignment in Thoracolumbar and Lumbar Scoliotic Curves , 2000, Spine.