AESTHETIC APPEARANCE ASSESSMENT IN ADOLESCENTS WITH IDIOPATHIC SCOLIOSIS

  • Prof. Vesna Zivkovic University of Nis, Faculty of Medicine
  • Lidija Dimitrijević
  • Hristina Čolović
  • Dragan Zlatanović
  • Marija Spalević
  • Nataša Savić
DOI: https://doi.org/10.5937/afmnai40-36944
Keywords: adolescent idiopathic scoliosis, aesthetic appearance, evaluation, surface topography

Abstract


Aesthetic appearance is one of the major concerns in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS)  patients and its improvement is one of the main treatment’s goals. Poor trunk appearance is associated with  reduced quality of life in adolescents with idiopathic scoliosis. In order to evaluate the aesthetic impairment in these patients, various instruments have been created. They can roughly be classed as instruments that assess subjective perception or objective aesthetic appearance. The first group consists primarily of self-administered quality of life questionnaires that include an aesthetic component, such as the Scoliosis Research Society 22 (SRS-22) questionnaire and the Italian Spinal Youth Quality of Life (ISYQoL) questionnaire, as well as visual scales based on patient-completed trunk drawings, such as the Walter Reed Assessment Scale, the Spinal Appearance Questionnaire, and the Trunk Appearance Perception Scale. Trunk asymmetry scales that use pictures, such as the TRACE (Trunk Aestethic Clinical Evaluation), the POTSI (Posterior Trunk Symmetry Index) and the ATSI (Anterior Trunk Symmetry Index),  2-dimensional digital photography, and surface topography can all be used to assess the aesthetic profile of subjects, allowing for objective evaluation.

References


  1. Illés T, Tunyogi-Csapó M, Somoskeöy S. Breakthrough in three-dimensional scoliosis diagnosis: significance of horizontal plane view and vertebra vectors. Eur Spine J. 2011; 20(1): 135-43. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-010-1566-8

  2. Konieczny MR, Senyurt H and Krausp R. Epidemiology of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. J Child Orthop 2013; 7: 3–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11832-012-0457-4

  3. Negrini S, Donzelli S, Aulisa GA et al. 2016 SOSORT guidelines: orthopaedic and rehabilitation treatment of idiopathic scoliosis during growth. Scoliosis and Spinal Disorders 2018; 13:3. https://org/ 10.1186/s13013-017-0145-8.

  4. Weinstein SL, Dolan LA, Spratt KF, Peterson KK, Spoonamore MJ, Ponseti IV. Health and function of patients with untreated idiopathic scoliosis: a 50-year natural history study. 2003;289(5):559-67. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.289.5.559.

  5. Weinstein SL. The Natural History of Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis. J Pediatr Orthop. 2019;39(Suppl 1):S44-S46. https://doi.org/1097/BPO.0000000000001350.

  6. Lonstein JE. Scoliosis: surgical versus nonsurgical treatment. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2006;443:248-59. https://doi.org/1097/01.blo.0000198725.54891.73

  7. Kotwicki T, Negrini S, Grivas TB et al. Methodology of evaluation of morphology of the spine and the trunk in idiopathic scoliosis and other spinal deformities - 6th SOSORT consensus paper. Scoliosis 2009; 4:26. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-7161-4-26.

  8. Caronni A, Donzelli S, Zaina F, Negrini S. The Italian Spine Youth Quality of Life questionnaire measures health-related quality of life of adolescents with spinal deformities better than the reference standard, the Scoliosis Research Society 22 questionnaire. Clin Rehabil. 2019;33(8):1404-15. https://doi.org/10.1177/0269215519842246.

  9. Asher MA, Min Lai S, Burton DC. Further development and validation of the Scoliosis Research Society (SRS) outcomes instrument. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2000;25(18):2381–6. https://doi.org/ 1097/00007632-200009150-00018

  10. Caronni A, Sciumè L, Donzelli S, Zaina F, Negrini S. ISYQOL: a Rasch-consistent questionnaire for measuring health-related quality of life in adolescents with spinal deformities. Spine J. 2017;17(9):1364-72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2017.05.022

  11. Sanders JO, Polly DW, Cats-Baril W, et al. Analysis of patient and parent assessment of deformity in idiopathic scoliosis using the Walter Reed Visual Assessment Scale. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2003;28(18):2158-63. https://doi.org/1097/01.BRS.0000084629.97042.0B

  12. Sanders JO, Harrast JJ, Kuklo TR, Polly DW, Bridwell KH, Diab M, Dormans JP, Drummond DS, Emans JB, Johnston CE, et al. The Spinal Appearance Questionnaire: results of reliability, validity, and responsiveness testing in patients with idiopathic scoliosis. Spine. 2007;32:2719–22. https://doi.org/1097/BRS.0b013e31815a5959

  13. Bago J, J Sanchez-Raya, Perez-Grueso FJ, Climent JM. The Trunk Appearance Perception Scale (TAPS): a new tool to evaluate subjective impression of trunk deformity in patients with idiopathic scoliosis. Scoliosis. 2010 Mar 25;5:6. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-7161-5-6

  14. Zaina F, Negrini S, Atanasio S. TRACE (Trunk Aesthetic Clinical Evaluation), a routine clinical tool to evaluate aesthetics in scoliosis patients: development from the Aesthetic Index (AI) and repeatability. Scoliosis. 2009;4:3. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-7161-4-3

  15. Stolinski L, Kotwicki T, Czaprowski D, Chowanska J, Suzuki N. Analysis of the Anterior Trunk Symmetry Index (ATSI). Preliminary report. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2012;176:242-6.

  16. Suzuki N, Inami K, Ono T, Kohno K, Asher MA. Analysis of Posterior Trunk Symmetry Index (POTSI) in Scoliosis. Part 1. Stud Health Technol Inform 1999;59:81-4.

  17. Stolinski L , Kozinoga M. Czaprowski D, et al. Two-dimensional digital photography for child body posture evaluation: standardized technique, reliable parameters and normative data for age 7-10 years. Scoliosis and Spinal Disorders 2017; 12:38. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13013-017-0146-7

  18. Frerich JM, Hertzler K, Knott P and Mardjetko S. Comparison of radiographic and surface topography measurements in adolescents with idiopathic scoliosis. The Open Orthopaedics Journal 2012; 6: 261-65. https://doi.org/10.2174/1874325001206010261

  19. Pineda S, Bago J, Gilperez C, Climent JM. Validity of the Walter Reed Visual Assessment Scale to measure subjective perception of spine deformity in patients with idiopathic scoliosis. Scoliosis 2006;1:18. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-7161-1-1

  20. Bago J, Climent JM, Pineda S, Gilperez C. Further evaluation of the Walter Reed Visual Assessment Scale: correlation with curve pattern and radiological deformity. Scoliosis. 2007;2:12. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-7161-2-12

  21. Carreon LY, Sanders JO, Polly DW et al. Spinal appearance questionnaire: factor analysis, scoring, reliability, and validity testing. Spine. 2011;36(18):E1240-4. https://doi.org/1097/BRS.0b013e318204f987

  22. Rigo M, D’Agata E, Jelacic M. Trunk Appearance Perception Scale (TAPS) discrepancy between scoliosis children and their parents influence the SRS-22 score. Scoliosis. 2012;7:O3. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-7161-7-S1-O3

  23. Misterska E, Glowacki M, Latuszewska J, Adamczyk K. Perception of stress level, trunk appearance, body function and mental health in females with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis treated conservatively: a longitudinal analysis. Qual Life Res. 2013;22:1633–45. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-012-0316-2

  24. Thielsch MT, Wetterkamp M, Boertz P, Gosheger G, Schulte TL. Reliability and validity of the Spinal Appearance Questionnaire (SAQ) and the Trunk Appearance Perception Scale (TAPS). J Orthop Surg Res. 2018;13(1):274. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13018-018-0980-1

  25. Negrini S, Donzelli S, Di Felice F, Zaina F, Caronni A. Construct validity of the Trunk Aesthetic Clinical Evaluation (TRACE) in young people with idiopathic scoliosis. Ann Phys Rehabil Med. 2020; 63: 216-21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rehab.2019.10.008

  26. Knott P, Sturm P, Lonner B, et al. Multicenter comparison of 3D spinal measurements using surface topography with those from conventional radiography. Spine Deform. 2016; 4: 98–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jspd.2015.08.008

  27. Navarro J.R.L, Rosa B.N.d, Candotti CT. Anatomical reference marks, evaluation parameters and reproducibility of surface topography for evaluating the adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: a systematic review with meta-analysis. Gait & Posture 2019; 69:112–120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gaitpost.2019.01.001


 


 


 


 


 


 

Published
2025/12/09
Issue
Vol. 40 No. 1 (2023): Acta facultatis medicae Naissensis
Section
Pregledni rad / Review article