These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Spine deformity correlates better than trunk deformity with idiopathic scoliosis patients' quality of life questionnaire responses.
    Author: Asher M, Lai SM, Burton D, Manna B.
    Journal: Stud Health Technol Inform; 2002; 91():462-4. PubMed ID: 15457777.
    Abstract:
    AIM: To determine whether either spine or trunk deformity measurements correlate with patients quality of life questionnaire responses. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty five pre operative patients (5M, 40F), average age 15 years, 9 months (range, 10-20) met the inclusion criteria of age (< or = 20 years), Posterior Trunk Symmetry Index (POTSI) and Suzuki Hump Sum (SHS) determination from surface topography, and Scoliosis Research Society-22 (SRS-22)patient questionnaire completion. Average measurement and measurement ranges were largest Cobb 62 degrees (range, 40-137 degrees), POTSI 49 (range, 17-149), SHS 16 (5-32), and SRS-22 subtotal score 3.86 (range, 4.7-2.35). The individual SRS-22 domain scores were function 4.13 (4.80-2.20), pain 4.01 (5-1.60), self image 3.34 (4.4-1.80) and mental health 4.01 (5-1.80). (Scale 5 Best-1 Worst). Correlations between deformity and questionnaire measurements were determined, p<0.01 considered significant. RESULTS: Spine deformity (Cobb) correlated with the SRS-22 subtotal scores (cc-04207, p<0.005) and with the function and self image SRS-22 domain scores: cc0.5182, p<0.001) and cc-0.3981, p<0.01 respectively. Neither trunk deformity score correlated with the SRS-22 Score: POTSI versus SRS-22 (cc 0.0449, ns) and SHS versus SRS-22 (cc-0.0311, ns) CONCLUSION: Spine deformity correlates well with quality of life questionnaire responses whereas trunk deformity magnitude does not. This is somewhat surprising as it is the trunk deformity that the patient can they themselves see. These findings illustrate the pitfalls of assuming what is important to the patient based on clinical measurements.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]