The Scoliosis Research Society classification for adult spinal deformity.

University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California, United States
Neurosurgery clinics of North America (Impact Factor: 1.54). 05/2007; 18(2):207-13. DOI: 10.1016/
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The management of adult spinal deformity is characterized by significant variability in operative and nonoperative approaches. Adult spinal deformity encompasses a broad spectrum of disorders of the spine, and the disparity observed in reported clinical outcomes of operative and nonoperative care reflects the heterogeneity of the cases studied. A classification of spinal deformity in adults is important in providing a framework for comparison of similar cases and for reporting outcomes on well-defined disorders. Existing classifications of scoliosis are limited in their applicability to adult deformity because they do not include parameters of lumbar degenerative change and regional sagittal alignment that are critical to decision making in surgical care of the adult. The Scoliosis Research Society classification for adult deformity is presented in this article. The purpose of this classification is to provide a framework for reporting similar cases and to contribute to the development of an evidence-based approach to the management of adult spinal deformity.

1 Follower
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Study Design. Retrospective analysis.Objective. To determine if statistically significant differences exist between operative idiopathic early-onset scoliosis (IEOS) and adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) in primary curve characteristics, stable vertebra, kyphosis, or lumbar deformity and, if so, to identify the clinical significance of these differences.Summary of Background Data. To our knowledge, no study has statistically compared radiographical measures of operative IEOS and AIS.Methods. We identified operative patients (60 IEOS, 1,537 AIS) in 2 multi-center databases and measured preoperative radiographical parameters of interest. The measurements were compared using the Student t test and other appropriate statistical methods (significance, P = 0.05).Results. The IEOS and AIS groups were significantly different in primary curve magnitude (70° ± 20° vs. 54° ± 13°, respectively; P < 0.001), stable vertebra location (L3.0 ± 1.4 vs. L2.1 ± 2.2, respectively; P = 0.001), and T2 to T12 kyphosis (40° ± 15° vs. 31° ± 13°, respectively; P < 0.001). Distribution of major curve apex was unimodal centered close to the thoracolumbar junction in IEOS versus bimodal in AIS. Primary curve type was thoracic in 83% and 79% and thoracolumbar/lumbar in 17% and 21% of patients with IEOS and AIS, respectively. When the overall cohorts were separated into curve types and these subsets were compared, statistically significant differences were found between IEOS and AIS in thoracic primary curves (apex, magnitude, direction, proximal and distal Cobb vertebrae, and lumbar deformity) and thoracolumbar/lumbar primary curves (magnitude).Conclusion. Significant radiographical differences exist between operative IEOS and AIS curves. IEOS curves are greater in magnitude, more kyphotic, less well compensated, and have a more caudal apex and stable vertebra. These findings suggest that younger patients may require more distal instrumentation and that proximal fixation techniques should consider the additional pull out forces created by the greater kyphosis.
    Spine 04/2013; 38(16). DOI:10.1097/BRS.0b013e318294eb37 · 2.45 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Placement of intrathecal opioid pumps (ITOP) for chronic pain is a rare, but described cause of progressive spinal deformity. Over the last two decades there has been several suspected cases at our institution. In this case series, we described the apparent association between placement of an intrathecal opioid pump and progression of spinal deformity.
    The Iowa orthopaedic journal 01/2014; 34:144-9.
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Existing literature on adult spinal deformity (ASD) offers little guidance regarding an evidence-based approach to care. To optimize the value of medical treatment, a thorough understanding of the cost of surgical treatment for ASD is required. To evaluate four clinically and radiographically distinct groups of ASD and identify and compare the cost of surgical treatment among the groups. Multicenter retrospective study of consecutive surgeries for ASD. Three hundred twenty-five consecutive ASD patients treated between 2008 and 2010. Cost data were collected from hospital administrative records on the direct costs (DCs) incurred for the episode of surgical care, excluding overhead. Based on preoperative radiographs and history, patients were categorized into one of four diagnostic categories of deformity: primary idiopathic scoliosis (PIS), primary degenerative scoliosis (PDS), primary sagittal plane deformity (PSPD), and revision (R). Analysis of variance and generalized linear model regressions were used to analyze the DCs of surgery and to assess differences in costs across the four diagnostic categories considered. Significant differences were observed in DC of surgery for different categories of ASD, with surgical treatment for PDS the most expensive followed in decreasing order by PSPD, PIS, and R (p<.01). Results further revealed a significant positive relationship between age and DC (p<.01) and a significant positive relationship between length of stay and DC (p<.01). Among PIS patients, for every incremental increase in levels fused, the expected DC increased by $3,997 (p=.00). Fusion to pelvis also significantly increased the DC of surgery for patients aged 18 to 29 years (p<.01) and 30 to 59 years (p<.01) but not for 60 years or more (p=.86). There is an increasing DC of surgery with increasing age, length of hospital stay, length of fusion, and fusions to the pelvis. Revision surgery is the least expensive surgery on average and should therefore not preclude its consideration from a pure cost perspective.
    The spine journal: official journal of the North American Spine Society 12/2013; 13(12):1843-8. DOI:10.1016/j.spinee.2013.06.048 · 2.80 Impact Factor