Adolescent idiopathic scoliosis patients report increased pain at five years compared with two years after surgical treatment

Spine

Volumn 33, Issue 10, 2008, Pages 1107-1112

  Upasani, Vidyadhar V ^a,b   Caltoum, Christine ^b   Petcharaporn, Maty ^b   Bastrom, Tracey P ^b   Pawelek, Jeff B ^b   Betz, Randal R ^c   Clements, David H ^d   Lenke, Lawrence G ^e   Lowe, Thomas G ^f   Newton, Peter O ^a,b,g  

^a University of California San Diego ^*  (United States)

^b RADY CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL   (United States)

^c SHRINERS HOSPITALS FOR CHILDREN   (United States)

^d TEMPLE UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (United States)

^e WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^f UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO   (United States)

^g NONE   (United States)

Author keywords

5 year follow up; Adolescent idiopathic scoliosis; SRS outcomes instrument assessment

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ARTICLE; CLINICAL EVALUATION; CLINICAL TRIAL; COMPARATIVE STUDY; CONTROLLED STUDY; FEMALE; HUMAN; IDIOPATHIC SCOLIOSIS; MALE; MULTICENTER STUDY; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PATIENT SATISFACTION; POSTOPERATIVE PAIN; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SPINE SURGERY; SURGICAL TECHNIQUE; THORACOSCOPY; TREATMENT RESPONSE;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; BACK PAIN; CHILD; FEMALE; FOLLOW-UP STUDIES; HUMANS; MALE; ORTHOPEDIC PROCEDURES; PAIN MEASUREMENT; PAIN, POSTOPERATIVE; PATIENT SATISFACTION; QUESTIONNAIRES; RECOVERY OF FUNCTION; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; SCOLIOSIS; SELF CONCEPT; TIME FACTORS; TREATMENT OUTCOME; UNITED STATES;

EID: 43049134830     PISSN: 03622436     EISSN: 15281159     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e31816f2849     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. Cotrel Y, Dubousset J, Guillaumat M. New universal instrumentation in spinal surgery. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1988;227:10-23.
2. Hamill CL, Lenke LG, Bridwell KH, et al. The use of pedicle screw fixation to improve correction in the lumbar spine of patients with idiopathic scoliosis. Is it warranted. Spine 1996;21:1241-9.
3. Harrington PR. Treatment of scoliosis. Correction and internal fixation by spine instrumentation. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1962;44:591-610.
4. Dickson JH, Erwin WD, Rossi D. Harrington instrumentation and arthrodesis for idiopathic scoliosis. A twenty-one-year follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1990;72:678-83.
5. Dickson JH, Mirkovic S, Noble PC, et al. Results of operative treatment of idiopathic scoliosis in adults. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1995;77:513-23.
6. Roye DP Jr, Farcy JP, Rickert JB, et al. Results of spinal instrumentation of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis by King type. Spine 1992;17(8 suppl):S270-S273.
7. Berven S, Deviren V, Demir-Deviren S, et al. Studies in the modified Scoliosis Research Society Outcomes Instrument in adults: validation, reliability, and discriminatory capacity. Spine 2003;28:2164-9; discussion 2169.
8. Climent JM, Reig A, Sanchez J, et al. Construction and validation of a specific quality of life instrument for adolescents with spine deformities. Spine 1995;20:2006-11.
9. Haher TR, Gorup JM, Shin TM, et al. Results of the Scoliosis Research Society instrument for evaluation of surgical outcome in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. A multicenter study of 244 patients. Spine 1999;24:1435-40.
10. Asher M, Min Lai S, Burton D, et al. The reliability and concurrent validity of the scoliosis research society-22 patient questionnaire for idiopathic scoliosis. Spine 2003;28:63-9.
11. Haher T, Valdevit A. The use of outcomes instruments in idiopathic scoliosis. In: Newton PO, ed. Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis. Rosemont, IL: American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, 2004;95-100.
12. Asher M, Min Lai S, Burton D, et al. Scoliosis research society-22 patient questionnaire: responsiveness to change associated with surgical treatment. Spine 2003;28:70-3.
13. Asher MA, Min Lai S, Burton DC. Further development and validation of the Scoliosis Research Society (SRS) outcomes instrument. Spine 2000;25:2381-6.
14. Newton PO, Parent S, Marks M, et al. Prospective evaluation of 50 consecutive scoliosis patients surgically treated with thoracoscopic anterior instrumentation. Spine 2005;30(17 suppl):S100-S109.
15. Rinella A, Lenke L, Peelle M, et al. Comparison of SRS questionnaire results submitted by both parents and patients in the operative treatment of idiopathic scoliosis. Spine 2004;29:303-10.
16. Watanabe K, Hasegawa K, Hirano T, et al. Use of the scoliosis research society outcomes instrument to evaluate patient outcome in untreated idiopathic scoliosis patients in Japan: part II: relation between spinal deformity and patient outcomes. Spine 2005;30:1202-5.
17. White SF, Asher MA, Lai SM, et al. Patients' perceptions of overall function, pain, and appearance after primary posterior instrumentation and fusion for idiopathic scoliosis. Spine 1999;24:1693-9; discussion 1699-700.
18. 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 2002;27:2046-51.
19. 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 2002;27:2036-40.
20. Lerner T, Frobin W, Bullmann V, et al. Changes in disc height and posteroanterior displacement after fusion in patients with idiopathic scoliosis: a 9-year follow-up study. J Spinal Disord Tech 2007;20:195-202.
21. Asher M, Lai SM, Burton D, et al. Spine deformity correlates better than trunk deformity with idiopathic scoliosis patients' quality of life questionnaire responses. Stud Health Technol Inform 2002;91:462-4.
22. Jaeschke R, Singer J, Guyatt GH. Measurement of health status. Ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference. Control Clin Trials 1989;10:407-15.
23. Salaffi F, Stancati A, Silvestri CA, et al. Minimal clinically important changes in chronic musculoskeletal pain intensity measured on a numerical rating scale. Eur J Pain 2004;8:283-91.
24. Quintana JM, Escobar A, Bilbao A, et al. Responsiveness and clinically important differences for the WOMAC and SF-36 after hip joint replacement. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2005;13:1076-83.
25. Wyrwich KW, Fihn SD, Tierney WM, et al. Clinically important changes in health-related quality of life for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: an expert consensus panel report. J Gen Intern Med 2003;18:196-202.
26. Wyrwich KW, Nelson HS, Tierney WM, et al. Clinically important differences in health-related quality of life for patients with asthma: an expert consensus panel report. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol 2003;91:148-53.
27. Wyrwich KW, Spertus JA, Kroenke K, et al. Clinically important differences in health status for patients with heart disease: an expert consensus panel report. Am Heart J 2004;147:615-22.
28. Berven S, Deviren V, Polly D, et al. Minimal clinically important difference in spinal deformity: defining a threshold of change that matters. Scoliosis Research Society 40th Annual Meeting and Course. Miami, FL: Scoliosis Research Society, 2005:155.