Asian Spine J > Volume 12(5); 2018 > Article |
|
Author | Study type | Subjects (gender, mean age) | CA mean before surgery | Surgery intervention | Follow time after surgery | Outcome measures | Results |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Mahaudens et al. (2010) [24] | Prospective study | 19 AIS (F, 15 yr) | 43.1 TL/L | 7 Subjects: ASF, 12 subjects: PSF | 12-16 mo | Spatio-temporal, kinetics, kinematic, EMG, mechanical work and energy cost | In both groups, compared with pre-surgery condition, step length was increased by 4% and cadence decreased by 2%. Pelvis and hip frontal motion increased by 18% and 25%, respectively. Only the shoulder rotation motion was mildly reduced by 1.5°.The EMG timing activity did not alter. The energy cost remained excessive. |
Wasylenko et al. (1983) [20] | Research support | 11 Normal, 9 scoliosis subjects (21 yr) | NS | PSF | 2.3 yr | Spatio-temporal | No abnormalities were demonstrates in velocity, cadence, stride length and single limb support time between postsurgery group and control group. |
Lenke et al. (2001) [7] | Prospective study, clinical trial | 30 AIS (28 F, 2 M; 14 yr) | 57 T | 12 Subjects: ASF, 16 subjects: PSF | 12 and 24 mo | Spatio-temporal, kinematic | Gait velocity was significantly reduced (p<0.05) between pre-surgery and 2-year post-surgery condition. Decreasing gait velocity was the result of significantly decreased stride length and cadence. Lower extremity kinematics isn't affected by spinal surgery over the entire gait cycle. |
Paul et al. (2014) [21] | Prospective study | 16 AIS | 47.1 T, 52.8 TL, 25.8 L | PSF | 12 mo | Walking speed | There wasn't significant change in gait speed between preoperatively and postoperatively condition. |
Yagi et al. (2017) [22] | Prospective case series | 33 Adult IS (F, 67.2 yr), 33 normal (F, 72.2 yr) | 46.8 T | PSF | 24 mo | Spatio-temporal, kinetics (GRF), kinematic | Both speed and stride improved significantly in the scoliotic group after surgery, but were still worse versus the normal subjects. Surgery significantly improved the ROM of all the lower extremity joints in the scoliotic group, but the post-surgery hip ROM was still worse in patients than in healthy volunteers. Although corrective surgery significantly improved asymmetrical GRF, difference between right- and left-side GRF vectors during gait was still larger in patients with IS versus healthy subjects. |
Holewijn et al. (2016) [26] | Prospective study | 20 AIS | NS | PSF | 3 and 12 mo | Shoulder kinematics | Shoulder rotation decreased at 3-month follow-up. However, reduce in shoulder transverse ROM wasn't significant difference at 12-month follow-up versus pre-surgery. |
Raison et al. (2012) [27] | Research support, comparative study | 8 AIS, 12 normal | >30 | PSF | NS | L5-S1 kinetics | There was significantly higher L5-S1 mediolateral forces in IS subjects before surgery versus control group. In addition, after correction surgery the maximal anteroposterior torque was significantly lower in comparison to presurgical condition. |
Shiomi (1995) [16] (only abstract) | Clinical trial | 68 AIS (17 spinal fusion+51 bracing), 186 normal | NS | NS | NS | Spatio-temporal | Following spinal fusion, the step width became wider but other temporal or distance factors didn't become worse. |
Sales de Gauzy et al. (2008) [17] (only abstract) | Prospective study | 46 (15 yr) | 56 | PSF | 3, 6, and 12 mo | Spatio-temporal | There was no remarkable difference in spatio-temporal parameters between the pre- and postoperative sessions at 3, 6, and 12 months |
Hopf et al. (1998) [28] | Prospective experimental (comparative) study | 23 AIS (20 F, 3 M; 11.3-29.3 yr), 4 normal (4 F, 20.7 yr) | 58.4 T, TL, and L | PSF | 6 and 9 mo | EMG | There was a significant post-surgery symmetrization of the activity of the iliocostalis lumborum muscles in most of the patients with the double major curvatures. This effect is also observed in the tensor fascia lata and glutaeus medius muscles in the thoracic curve patients. |
Holewijn et al. (2017) [25] | Prospective study | 18 AIS (14.2 yr) | 57 T | PSF | 3 and 12 mo | Spatio-temporal, kinematic | Spinal fusion decreased transversal pelvis ROM but this effect was not affected by walking velocity. Lower body ROM, cadence and step length remained unaffected. |
Dos Santos Alves et al. (2015) [32] | Randomized clinical trial | 50 Patients (25 study group, 25 control group) (10-18 yr) | CA >45 T | PSF | 3, 6, and 12 mo | Energy expenditure | A 4-month pre-surgery physical rehabilitation protocol promoted remarkable progressive improvement in respiratory and heart rate, and distance walked assessed by the 6MWT after surgery. |
Engsberg et al. (2003) [19] | Prospective study | 9 Normal, 20 AIS (F: 8 primary group, 49 yr; 12 revision group, 46 yr) | 42 L | ASF, PSF | 12 and 24 mo | Spatio-temporal, kinematic, gait endurance | Gait velocity for the primary group improved such that it wasn't different from the healthy group at 2 years postoperation. Lower extremity gait kinematics for both groups weren't different from healthy controls at 2 years postoperation. Gait endurance for the revision group was increased postoperatively. There was a significant reduction in shoulders frontal ROM with respect to the pelvis at the 2-year postoperative in both primary and revision groups. |
Engsberg et al. (2003) [18] | Prospective study | 31 AIS (PSF group: 15.5 yr; ASF group: 14 yr) | PSF: 59.31 ASF: 54.29 | 16 Subjects: ASF, 15 subjects: PSF | 12 mo | Spatio-temporal, kinematic | Gait velocity, stride length and stride width was not changed as a surgery consequence for the posterior and anterior groups and there were no differences between them. There were no changes after surgery for cadence for the anterior group, but cadence significant reduced for the posterior group. The shoulder ROM with respect to the pelvis in the transverse plane (rotation) showed a significant reduction postoperatively in both groups. |
En gsberg et al. (2001) [6] | Prospective study | 6 Normal, 21 IS (F: 8 primary group, 46 yr; 13 revision group, 46 yr) | 4 5.45 T, TL, and L | NS | 24 mo | Sp atio-temporal, kinematic, gait endurance | Re duced walking velocity for the primary group was the result of reduced cadence, while slower velocity for the revision group was the result of reduced stride length and cadence. The revision group walked less versus both the primary group and the healthy group. The revision group had less gait endurance scores than the primary group. The shoulders relative to the pelvis had greater flexion for the revision group than in the able-bodied controls (p=0.004). |
CA, Cobb angle; AIS, adolescent idiopathic scoliosis; F, female; M, male; TL, thoracolumbar; L, lumbar; T, thoracic; ASF, anterior spinal fusion; PSF, posterior spinal fusion; EMG, electromyography; NS, non-stated; IS, idiopathic scoliosis; GRF, ground reaction force; ROM, range of motion; 6MWT, 6-minute walk test.
Author | Subjects | Surgery intervention | Test condition |
Temporal spatial parameters |
|||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Velocity (m/sec) | Cadence (steps/min) | Stride length (m) | Step width (m) | ||||
Yagi et al. (2017) [22] | Normal: 33 | - | - | 1.17 (0.21) | 123.1 (8.1) | 1.14 (0.15) | - |
IS: 33 | PSF | 1 yr preop | 0.9 (0.17) | 113.1 (10.7) | 0.97 (0.13) | - | |
1 yr postop | 0.98 (0.14) | 110.1 (9.9) | 1.07 (0.11) | - | |||
Holewijn et al. (2017) [25] | AIS: 18 | PSF | Preop | - | - | 0.51 (0.02) | - |
3 mo postop | - | - | 0.53 (0.02) | - | |||
12 mo postop | - | - | 0.53 (0.002) | - | |||
Engsberg et al. (2003) [19] | Normal: 9 | - | - | 1.31 (0.14) | 123 (7) | 1.27 (0.11) | - |
IS: 20 | Primary surgery | Preop | 1.08 (0.12) | 109 (8) | 1.18 (0.08) | - | |
1 yr postop | 1.06 (0.24) | 109 (12) | 1.16 (0.15) | - | |||
2 yr postop | 1.16 (0.31) | 111 (13) | 1.23 (0.21) | - | |||
Revision surgery | Preop | 0.82 (0.39) | 102 (22) | 0.90 (0.21) | - | ||
1 yr postop | 0.82 (0.34) | 100 (20) | 0.95 (0.27) | - | |||
2 yr postop | 0.92 (0.30) | 108 (16) | 1.01 (0.23) | - | |||
Mahaudens et al. (2010) [24] | AIS: 19 | 7 Subjects: ASF, 12 subjects: PSF | Pre-surgery | 1.11 | 113 (5) | 1.32 (0.08) | - |
Post-surgery | 1.11 | 110 (5) | 1.38 (0.08) | - | |||
Engsberg et al. (2001) [6] | Normal: 6 | - | - | 1.34 (0.19) | 127 (7) | 1.27 (0.14) | 0.094 (0.029) |
AIS: 22 | Primary surgery | Postop | 1.09 (0.12) | 110 (8) | 1.18 (0.08) | 0.087 (0.024) | |
Revision surgery | Postop | 0.86 (0.40) | 104 (22) | 0.92 (0.31) | 0.076 (0.039) | ||
Engsberg et al. (2003) [18] | AIS: 16 | Anterior fusion | Preop | 1.15 (0.13) | 114 (10) | 1.20 (0.10) | 0.085 (0.046) |
Postop | 1.18 (0.17) | 115 (9) | 1.23 (0.15) | 0.075 (0.036) | |||
AIS: 15 | Posterior fusion | Preop | 1.22 (0.12) | 117 (5) | 1.24 (0.09) | 0.07 (0.027) | |
Postop | 1.17 (0.19) | 114 (8) | 1.22 (0.14) | 0.074 (0.022) | |||
Lenke et al. (2001) [7] | AIS: 30 | 12 Subjects: ASF, 16 subjects: PSF | Preop | 1.29 (16) | 120 (8) | 1.28 (11) | 0.081 (0.03) |
1 yr postop | 1.20 (16) | 115 (8) | 1.25 (11) | 0.072 (0.027) | |||
2 yr postop | 1.19 (16) | 114 (9) | 1.24 (12) | 0.074 (0.022) | |||
Paul et al. (2014) [21] | AIS: 16 | PSF | Preop | 1.16 (0.025) | - | - | - |
1 yr postop | 1.16 (0.025) | - | - | - |
Author | Subjects | Test condition |
Kinematics parameter |
Transversal ankle motion shoulder | Sagittal shoulder motion (°) | Frontal shoulder motion (°) | Transversal shoulder motion (°) | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Frontal pelvis motion (°) | Sagittal pelvis motion (°) | Transversal pelvis motion (°) | Frontal hip motion (°) | Sagittal motion (°) | Transversal hip motion (°) | Sagittal knee motion (°) | Sagittal ankle motion (°) | |||||||
Yagi et al. (2017) [22] | Normal: 33 | - | - | 4.0 (0.9) | - | - | 39.7 (5.3) | - | 56.9 (5.9) | 34.4 (5.6) | - | - | - | - |
IS: 33 | 1 yr preop | - | 5.8 (2.9) | - | - | 29.1 (9.5) | - | 56.2 (6.2) | 33.6 (5.9) | - | - | - | - | |
1 yr postop | - | 3.1 (2.2) | - | - | 35.8 (6.1) | - | 55.1 (7.2) | 34.2 (8.0) | - | - | - | - | ||
Holewijn et al. (2017) [25] | AIS: 18 | Preop | - | 4.7 (1.0) | 13.1 (2.7) | - | 44.7 (3.4) | - | - | - | 26.4 (4.6) | - | - | - |
3 mo postop | - | 4.2 (0.6) | 11.8 (3.1) | - | 46.8 (2.8) | - | - | - | 28.5 (4.4) | - | - | - | ||
12 mo postop | - | 4.0 (0.7) | 11.1 (3.2) | - | 46.6 (1.0) | - | - | - | 25.2 (3.5) | - | - | - | ||
Holewijn et al. (2016) [26] | AIS: 20 | Preop | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 11.2 (4.3) |
3 mo postop | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 8.2 (3.7) | ||
12 mo postop | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 9.4 (2.9) | ||
Mahaudens et al. (2010) [24] | AIS: 19 | Pre-surgery | 6.6 (1.9) | 3.4 (1.7) | 6.8 (2) | 9 (2.1) | 43 (4.3) | 16.5 (5.1) | 56.1 (7.7) | 27.5 (6.5) | 14.5 (4.9) | 3.3 (2.2) | 8.9 (2.3) | 4.5 (1.9) |
Post-surgery | 7.8 (2.7) | 2.7 (0.8) | 6 (2.1) | 11.3 (3.3) | 41.1 (4.2) | 16.3 (5.6) | 56.6 (4.7) | 28.7 (7.1) | 15.6 (4.4) | 3.7 (2.4) | 8.8 (2.2) | 3 (1.9) | ||
Engsberg et al. (2003) [19] | Normal: 9 | - | - | - | - | - | Flex at IC: 25 (4) | - | Flex at IC: 4 (2) | - | - | - | - | - |
AIS: 20 | Primary preop | - | - | - | - | Flex at IC: 26 (5) | - | Flex at IC: 6 (5) | - | - | - | - | - | |
Primary 1 yr postop | - | - | - | - | Flex at IC: 24 (4) | - | Flex at IC: 6 (2) | - | - | - | - | - | ||
Primary 2 yr postop | - | - | - | - | Flex at IC: 26 (4) | - | Flex at IC: 7 (3) | - | - | - | - | - | ||
Revision preop | - | - | - | - | Flex at IC: 34 (9) | - | Flex at IC: 11 (8) | - | - | - | - | - | ||
Revision 1 yr postop | - | - | - | - | Flex at IC: 24 (5) | - | Flex at IC: 10 (6) | - | - | - | - | - | ||
Rev ision 2 yr postop | - | - | - | - | F lex at IC: 24 (5) | - | Flex at IC: 7 (6) | - | - | - | - | - | ||
Lenke et al. (2001) [7] | AIS: 30 | Preop | - | - | - | - | - | - | Flex at IC: 3.3 (1) | Flex at IC: 3 (3.2) | Flex at IC: 11.7 (4.6) | - | - | - |
1 yr postop | - | - | - | - | - | - | Flex at IC: 3.8 (1.1) | Flex at IC: 2 (3.2) | Flex at IC: 10.8 (4.5) | - | - | - | ||
2 yr postop | - | - | - | - | - | - | Flex at IC: 2.8 (0.9) | Flex at IC: 3 (2.3) | Flex at IC: 11.5 (2.7) | - | - | - |
Author | Subjects | Test condition |
Mechanical work (J kg-1 m-1) |
Energetics |
|||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Wexternal | Winternal | Wtotal | Energy cost (J kg-1 m-1) | Endurance (min) | Heart rate (beat/min) | Respiratory ratio (VCO2/O2) | |||
Mahaudens et al. (2010) [24] | AIS: 19 | Preop | 0.23 (0.02) | 0.24 (0.03) | 0.49 (0.04) | 2.2 (0.3) | - | - | - |
Postop | 0.26 (0.03) | 0.26 (0.03) | 0.52 (0.06) | 2 (0.5) | - | - | - | ||
Engsberg et al. (2003) [19] | Normal: 9 | - | - | - | - | - | 21 (5) | - | - |
AIS: 20 | Primary preop | - | - | - | - | 15 (6) | - | - | |
Primary 1 yr postop | - | - | - | - | 16 (4) | - | - | ||
2 yr postop | - | - | - | - | 16 (3) | - | - | ||
Preop | - | - | - | - | 8 (5) | - | - | ||
Revision 1 yr postop | - | - | - | - | 12 (5) | - | - | ||
Revision 2 yr postop | - | - | - | - | 13 (3) | - | - | ||
Engsberg et al. (2001) [6] | Normal: 6 | - | - | - | - | 23 | - | - | |
IS: 21 | Primary post-surgery | - | - | - | - | 14 | - | - | |
Revision post-surgery | - | - | - | - | 8 | - | - | ||
Dos Santos Alves et al. (2015) [32] | 25 AIS: control group (without rehabilitation protocol) | Baseline | - | - | - | - | - | 114.64 (13.97) | 28.88 (2.74) |
Preop | - | - | - | - | - | 117.08 (9.48) | 29.96 (3.47) | ||
3 mo postop | - | - | - | - | 123.56 (8.15) | 32 (2.86) | |||
6 mo postop | - | - | - | - | 120 (12.05) | 31.64 (3.34) | |||
12 mo postop | - | - | - | - | - | 120.40 (10.19) | 30.92 (3.19) | ||
25 AIS: study group (with rehabilitation protocol) | Baseline | - | - | - | - | - | 115.24 (7.95) | 28.08 (3.37) | |
Preop | - | - | - | - | - | 97.76 (11.52) | 25.20 (3.87) | ||
3 mo postop | - | - | - | - | - | 111.12 (8.72) | 28.52 (3.73) | ||
6 mo postop | - | - | - | - | - | 106.40 (7.33) | 26.12 (3.61) | ||
12 mo postop | - | - | - | - | - | 105.64 (9.05) | 25.24 (3.79) |
Etiology of Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis: A Literature Review2019 June;13(3)