Why do we treat adolescent idiopathic scoliosis? What we want to obtain and to avoid for our patients. SOSORT 2005 Consensus paper

Stefano Negrini, Theodoros B. Grivas, Tomasz Kotwicki, Toru Maruyama, Manuel Rigo, Hans Weiss

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

96 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: Medicine is a scientific art: once science is not clear, choices are made according to individual and collective beliefs that should be better understood. This is particularly true in a field like adolescent idiopathic scoliosis, where currently does not exist definitive scientific evidence on the efficacy either of conservative or of surgical treatments. Aim of the study: To verify the philosophical choices on the final outcome of a group of people believing and engaged in a conservative treatment of idiopathic scoliosis. Methods: We performed a multifaceted study that included a bibliometric analysis, a questionnaire, and a careful Consensus reaching procedure between experts in the conservative treatment of scoliosis (SOSORT members). Results: The Consensus reaching procedure has shown to be useful: answers changed in a statistically significant way, and 9 new outcome criteria were included. The most important final outcomes were considered Aesthetics (100%), Quality of life and Disability (more than 90%), while more than 80% of preferences went to Back Pain, Psychological well-being, Progression in adulthood, Breathing function, Scoliosis Cobb degrees (radiographic lateral flexion), Needs of further treatments in adulthood. Discussion: In the literature prevail outcome criteria driven by the contingent treatment needs or the possibility to have measurement systems (even if it seems that usual clinical and radiographic methods are given much more importance than more complex Disability or Quality of Life instruments). SOSORT members give importance to a wide range of outcome criteria, in which clinical and radiographic issues have the lowest importance. Conclusion: We treat our patients for what they need for their future (Breathing function, Needs of further treatments in adulthood, Progression in adulthood), and their present too (Aesthetics, Disability, Quality of life). Technical matters, such as rib hump or radiographic lateral alignment and rotation, but not lateral flexion, are secondary outcomes and only instrumental to previously reported primary outcomes. We advocate a multidimensional, comprehensive evaluation of scoliosis patients, to gather all necessary data for a complete therapeutic approach, that goes beyond x-rays to reach the person and the family.

Original languageEnglish
Article number4
JournalScoliosis
Volume1
Issue number1
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Apr 10 2006

Fingerprint

Scoliosis
Consensus
Quality of Life
Esthetics
Respiration
Bibliometrics
Therapeutics
Ribs
Back Pain
Art
X-Rays
Medicine
Psychology
Conservative Treatment

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Orthopedics and Sports Medicine

Cite this

Why do we treat adolescent idiopathic scoliosis? What we want to obtain and to avoid for our patients. SOSORT 2005 Consensus paper. / Negrini, Stefano; Grivas, Theodoros B.; Kotwicki, Tomasz; Maruyama, Toru; Rigo, Manuel; Weiss, Hans.

In: Scoliosis, Vol. 1, No. 1, 4, 10.04.2006.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Negrini, Stefano ; Grivas, Theodoros B. ; Kotwicki, Tomasz ; Maruyama, Toru ; Rigo, Manuel ; Weiss, Hans. / Why do we treat adolescent idiopathic scoliosis? What we want to obtain and to avoid for our patients. SOSORT 2005 Consensus paper. In: Scoliosis. 2006 ; Vol. 1, No. 1.
@article{6a128552b3d3416e9f21259ce3a5f23b,
title = "Why do we treat adolescent idiopathic scoliosis? What we want to obtain and to avoid for our patients. SOSORT 2005 Consensus paper",
abstract = "Background: Medicine is a scientific art: once science is not clear, choices are made according to individual and collective beliefs that should be better understood. This is particularly true in a field like adolescent idiopathic scoliosis, where currently does not exist definitive scientific evidence on the efficacy either of conservative or of surgical treatments. Aim of the study: To verify the philosophical choices on the final outcome of a group of people believing and engaged in a conservative treatment of idiopathic scoliosis. Methods: We performed a multifaceted study that included a bibliometric analysis, a questionnaire, and a careful Consensus reaching procedure between experts in the conservative treatment of scoliosis (SOSORT members). Results: The Consensus reaching procedure has shown to be useful: answers changed in a statistically significant way, and 9 new outcome criteria were included. The most important final outcomes were considered Aesthetics (100{\%}), Quality of life and Disability (more than 90{\%}), while more than 80{\%} of preferences went to Back Pain, Psychological well-being, Progression in adulthood, Breathing function, Scoliosis Cobb degrees (radiographic lateral flexion), Needs of further treatments in adulthood. Discussion: In the literature prevail outcome criteria driven by the contingent treatment needs or the possibility to have measurement systems (even if it seems that usual clinical and radiographic methods are given much more importance than more complex Disability or Quality of Life instruments). SOSORT members give importance to a wide range of outcome criteria, in which clinical and radiographic issues have the lowest importance. Conclusion: We treat our patients for what they need for their future (Breathing function, Needs of further treatments in adulthood, Progression in adulthood), and their present too (Aesthetics, Disability, Quality of life). Technical matters, such as rib hump or radiographic lateral alignment and rotation, but not lateral flexion, are secondary outcomes and only instrumental to previously reported primary outcomes. We advocate a multidimensional, comprehensive evaluation of scoliosis patients, to gather all necessary data for a complete therapeutic approach, that goes beyond x-rays to reach the person and the family.",
author = "Stefano Negrini and Grivas, {Theodoros B.} and Tomasz Kotwicki and Toru Maruyama and Manuel Rigo and Hans Weiss",
year = "2006",
month = "4",
day = "10",
doi = "10.1186/1748-7161-1-4",
language = "English",
volume = "1",
journal = "Scoliosis",
issn = "1748-7161",
publisher = "BioMed Central",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Why do we treat adolescent idiopathic scoliosis? What we want to obtain and to avoid for our patients. SOSORT 2005 Consensus paper

AU - Negrini, Stefano

AU - Grivas, Theodoros B.

AU - Kotwicki, Tomasz

AU - Maruyama, Toru

AU - Rigo, Manuel

AU - Weiss, Hans

PY - 2006/4/10

Y1 - 2006/4/10

N2 - Background: Medicine is a scientific art: once science is not clear, choices are made according to individual and collective beliefs that should be better understood. This is particularly true in a field like adolescent idiopathic scoliosis, where currently does not exist definitive scientific evidence on the efficacy either of conservative or of surgical treatments. Aim of the study: To verify the philosophical choices on the final outcome of a group of people believing and engaged in a conservative treatment of idiopathic scoliosis. Methods: We performed a multifaceted study that included a bibliometric analysis, a questionnaire, and a careful Consensus reaching procedure between experts in the conservative treatment of scoliosis (SOSORT members). Results: The Consensus reaching procedure has shown to be useful: answers changed in a statistically significant way, and 9 new outcome criteria were included. The most important final outcomes were considered Aesthetics (100%), Quality of life and Disability (more than 90%), while more than 80% of preferences went to Back Pain, Psychological well-being, Progression in adulthood, Breathing function, Scoliosis Cobb degrees (radiographic lateral flexion), Needs of further treatments in adulthood. Discussion: In the literature prevail outcome criteria driven by the contingent treatment needs or the possibility to have measurement systems (even if it seems that usual clinical and radiographic methods are given much more importance than more complex Disability or Quality of Life instruments). SOSORT members give importance to a wide range of outcome criteria, in which clinical and radiographic issues have the lowest importance. Conclusion: We treat our patients for what they need for their future (Breathing function, Needs of further treatments in adulthood, Progression in adulthood), and their present too (Aesthetics, Disability, Quality of life). Technical matters, such as rib hump or radiographic lateral alignment and rotation, but not lateral flexion, are secondary outcomes and only instrumental to previously reported primary outcomes. We advocate a multidimensional, comprehensive evaluation of scoliosis patients, to gather all necessary data for a complete therapeutic approach, that goes beyond x-rays to reach the person and the family.

AB - Background: Medicine is a scientific art: once science is not clear, choices are made according to individual and collective beliefs that should be better understood. This is particularly true in a field like adolescent idiopathic scoliosis, where currently does not exist definitive scientific evidence on the efficacy either of conservative or of surgical treatments. Aim of the study: To verify the philosophical choices on the final outcome of a group of people believing and engaged in a conservative treatment of idiopathic scoliosis. Methods: We performed a multifaceted study that included a bibliometric analysis, a questionnaire, and a careful Consensus reaching procedure between experts in the conservative treatment of scoliosis (SOSORT members). Results: The Consensus reaching procedure has shown to be useful: answers changed in a statistically significant way, and 9 new outcome criteria were included. The most important final outcomes were considered Aesthetics (100%), Quality of life and Disability (more than 90%), while more than 80% of preferences went to Back Pain, Psychological well-being, Progression in adulthood, Breathing function, Scoliosis Cobb degrees (radiographic lateral flexion), Needs of further treatments in adulthood. Discussion: In the literature prevail outcome criteria driven by the contingent treatment needs or the possibility to have measurement systems (even if it seems that usual clinical and radiographic methods are given much more importance than more complex Disability or Quality of Life instruments). SOSORT members give importance to a wide range of outcome criteria, in which clinical and radiographic issues have the lowest importance. Conclusion: We treat our patients for what they need for their future (Breathing function, Needs of further treatments in adulthood, Progression in adulthood), and their present too (Aesthetics, Disability, Quality of life). Technical matters, such as rib hump or radiographic lateral alignment and rotation, but not lateral flexion, are secondary outcomes and only instrumental to previously reported primary outcomes. We advocate a multidimensional, comprehensive evaluation of scoliosis patients, to gather all necessary data for a complete therapeutic approach, that goes beyond x-rays to reach the person and the family.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=33750471747&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=33750471747&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1186/1748-7161-1-4

DO - 10.1186/1748-7161-1-4

M3 - Article

VL - 1

JO - Scoliosis

JF - Scoliosis

SN - 1748-7161

IS - 1

M1 - 4

ER -