Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Quality of life outcomes in surgically treated adult scoliosis patients: a systematic review

  • Review Article
  • Published:
European Spine Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

The aim of this systematic review was to identify prospective studies reporting the impact of surgical intervention on health-related quality of life (HRQL) outcomes for adults with scoliosis at a minimum 2 year follow-up.

Method

An electronic database search was conducted for January 2000–November 2013 in conjunction with a reference list search of two related systematic reviews for prospective studies of adults with scoliosis reporting HRQL outcome measure. Methodological quality of included articles was assessed using the Downs and Black checklist. Cohen’s d effect size was calculated for Scoliosis Research Society Questionnaire (SRS) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) outcomes for included studies and pooled data.

Results

The database and reference list searches returned 349 potential articles; three articles met the inclusion criteria. Downs and Black scores ranged from 18/28 to 21/28 (fair–good quality evidence). Total number of 188 patients were treated surgically and had a mean age of 38 years or older. All studies showed significant improvement in reported HRQL outcomes for at least a 2 year follow-up. The Cohen’s d effect size for SRS was d = 1.4 (n = 188, 95 % CI; 0.9, 1.8) and for ODI d = 0.9 (n = 120, 95 % CI; 0.4, 1.4).

Conclusion

Findings from this review suggest surgery improves HRQL in patients with adult scoliosis at a minimum 2 year follow-up. However, these findings are based on limited data of fair to good quality which needs to be taken into consideration when interpreting the results and highlights the need for additional high quality prospective studies.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Schwab F, Dubey A, Gamez L, El Fegoun AB, Hwang K, Pagala M, Farcy JP (2005) Adult scoliosis: prevalence, SF-36, and nutritional parameters in an elderly volunteer population. Spine 30(9):1082–1085

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Aebi M (2005) The adult scoliosis. Eur Spine J 14(10):925–948. doi:10.1007/s00586-005-1053-9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Kebaish KM, Neubauer PR, Voros GD, Khoshnevisan MA, Skolasky RL (2011) Scoliosis in adults aged forty years and older: prevalence and relationship to age, race, and gender. Spine 36(9):731–736. doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181e9f120

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Cobb J (1948) Outline for the study of scoliosis. In: Instructional course lectures, the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS). Ann Arbor, pp 261–275

  5. Buchowski JM (2009) Adult Scoliosis: etiology and classification. Semin Spine Surg 21(1):2–6. doi:10.1053/j.semss.2008.12.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Tambe AD, Michael ALR (2011) (iii) Adult degenerative scoliosis. Orthop Trauma 25(6):413–424. doi:10.1016/j.mporth.2011.11.006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Kebaish KM (2009) Degenerative (De Novo) adult scoliosis. Semin Spine Surg 21(1):7–15. doi:10.1053/j.semss.2008.11.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Palmisani M, Dema E, Cervellati S (2013) Surgical treatment of adult degenerative scoliosis. Eur Spine J 22(6):829–833. doi:10.1007/s00586-013-3012-1

    Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Everett CR, Patel RK (2007) A systematic literature review of nonsurgical treatment in adult scoliosis. Spine 32(19 Suppl):S130–S134. doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e318134ea88

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Smith JS, Shaffrey CI, Berven S, Glassman S, Hamill C, Horton W, Ondra S, Schwab F, Shainline M, Fu KM, Bridwell K, Spinal Deformity Study Group (2009) Improvement of back pain with operative and nonoperative treatment in adults with scoliosis. Neurosurgery 65(1):86–93. doi:10.1227/01.NEU.0000347005.35282.6C (discussion 93–84)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Sansur CA, Smith JS, Coe JD, Glassman SD, Berven SH, Polly DW Jr, Perra JH, Boachie-Adjei O, Shaffrey CI (2011) Scoliosis research society morbidity and mortality of adult scoliosis surgery. Spine 36(9):E593–E597. doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e3182059bfd

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Coe JD, Arlet V, Donaldson W, Berven S, Hanson DS, Mudiyam R, Perra JH, Shaffrey CI (2006) Complications in spinal fusion for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis in the new millennium. A report of the Scoliosis Research Society Morbidity and Mortality Committee. Spine 31(3):345–349. doi:10.1097/01.brs.0000197188.76369.13

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Yadla S, Maltenfort MG, Ratliff JK, Harrop JS (2010) Adult scoliosis surgery outcomes: a systematic review. Neurosurg Focus 28(3):E3. doi:10.3171/2009.12.FOCUS09254

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Liang CZ, Li FC, Li H, Tao Y, Zhou X, Chen QX (2012) Surgery is an effective and reasonable treatment for degenerative scoliosis: a systematic review. J Int Med Res 40(2):399–405

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Downs SH, Black N (1998) The feasibility of creating a checklist for the assessment of the methodological quality both of randomised and non-randomised studies of health care interventions. J Epidemiol Community Health 52(6):377–384

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Deeks JJ, Dinnes J, D’Amico R, Sowden AJ, Sakarovitch C, Song F, Petticrew M, Altman DG, International Stroke Trial Collaborative Group, European Carotid Surgery Trial Collaborative Group (2003) Evaluating non-randomised intervention studies. Health Technol Assess 7(27):iii–x, 1–173

  17. Saunders LD, Soomro GM, Buckingham J, Jamtvedt G, Raina P (2003) Assessing the methodological quality of nonrandomized intervention studies. West J Nurs Res 25(2):223–237

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Chudyk AM, Jutai JW, Petrella RJ, Speechley M (2009) Systematic review of hip fracture rehabilitation practices in the elderly. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 90(2):246–262. doi:10.1016/j.apmr.2008.06.036

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Samoocha D, Bruinvels DJ, Elbers NA, Anema JR, van der Beek AJ (2010) Effectiveness of web-based interventions on patient empowerment: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Med Internet Res 12(2):e23. doi:10.2196/jmir.1286

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. SCIRE Project (2010) Quality assessment tool and data extraction. http://www.scireproject.com/about-scire/methods-of-systematic-review/article-assessment/quality-assessment-tool-and-data-extract. Accessed 17 November 2013

  21. Hooper P, Jutai JW, Strong G, Russell-Minda E (2008) Age-related macular degeneration and low-vision rehabilitation: a systematic review. Can J Ophthalmol 43(2):180–187. doi:10.3129/i08-001

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Rose PS, Lenke LG, Bridwell KH, Mulconrey DS, Cronen GA, Buchowski JM, Schwend RM, Sides BA (2009) Pedicle screw instrumentation for adult idiopathic scoliosis: an improvement over hook/hybrid fixation. Spine 34(8):852–857. doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e31818e5962 (discussion 858)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Lai SM, Burton DC, Asher MA, Carlson BB (2011) Converting SRS-24, SRS-23, and SRS-22 to SRS-22r: establishing conversion equations using regression modeling. Spine 36(23):E1525–E1533. doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e3182118adf

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Becker LA (1999) Effect size calculators. University of Colorado Colorado Springs. http://www.uccs.edu/~lbecker/

  25. Neyeloff JL, Fuchs SC, Moreira LB (2012) Meta-analyses and Forest plots using a microsoft excel spreadsheet: step-by-step guide focusing on descriptive data analysis. BMC Res Notes 5:52. doi:10.1186/1756-0500-5-52

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Bridwell KH, Glassman S, Horton W, Shaffrey C, Schwab F, Zebala LP, Lenke LG, Hilton JF, Shainline M, Baldus C, Wootten D (2009) Does treatment (nonoperative and operative) improve the two-year quality of life in patients with adult symptomatic lumbar scoliosis: a prospective multicenter evidence-based medicine study. Spine 34(20):2171–2178. doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181a8fdc8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Smith J, Shaffrey C, Glassman S, Carreon L, Schwab F, Lafage V, Arlet V, Fu K-M, Bridwell K (2013) Clinical and radiographic parameters that distinguish between the best and worst outcomes of scoliosis surgery for adults. Eur Spine J 22(2):402–410. doi:10.1007/s00586-012-2547-x

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Kasliwal MK, Smith JS, Shaffrey CI, Carreon LY, Glassman SD, Schwab F, Lafage V, Fu KM, Bridwell KH (2012) Does prior short-segment surgery for adult scoliosis impact perioperative complication rates and clinical outcome among patients undergoing scoliosis correction? J Neurosurg Spine 17(2):128–133. doi:10.3171/2012.4.SPINE12130

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Glassman SD, Carreon LY, Djurasovic M, Dimar JR, Johnson JR, Puno RM, Campbell MJ (2009) Lumbar fusion outcomes stratified by specific diagnostic indication. Spine J 9(1):13–21. doi:10.1016/j.spinee.2008.08.011

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Zimmerman RM, Mohamed AS, Skolasky RL, Robinson MD, Kebaish KM (2010) Functional outcomes and complications after primary spinal surgery for scoliosis in adults aged forty years or older: a prospective study with minimum two-year follow-up. Spine 35(20):1861–1866. doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181e57827

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Cohen J (2013) Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences

  32. McCormick JD, Werner BC, Shimer AL (2013) Patient-reported outcome measures in spine surgery. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 21:99

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Bago J, Climent JM, Perez-Grueso FJ, Pellise F (2013) Outcome instruments to assess scoliosis surgery. Eur Spine J 22(Suppl 2):S195–S202. doi:10.1007/s00586-012-2352-6

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Bago J, Perez-Grueso FJ, Les E, Hernandez P, Pellise F (2009) Minimal important differences of the SRS-22 Patient Questionnaire following surgical treatment of idiopathic scoliosis. Eur Spine J 18(12):1898–1904. doi:10.1007/s00586-009-1066-x

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Bridwell KH, Cats-Baril W, Harrast J, Berven S, Glassman S, Farcy JP, Horton WC, Lenke LG, Baldus C, Radake T (2005) The validity of the SRS-22 instrument in an adult spinal deformity population compared with the Oswestry and SF-12: a study of response distribution, concurrent validity, internal consistency, and reliability. Spine 30(4):455–461

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Berven S, Deviren V, Demir-Deviren S, Hu SS, Bradford DS (2003) Studies in the modified scoliosis Research Society Outcomes Instrument in adults: validation, reliability, and discriminatory capacity. Spine 28(18):2164–2169. doi:10.1097/01.BRS.0000084666.53553.D6 (discussion 2169)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Bridwell KH, Berven S, Glassman S, Hamill C, Horton WC 3rd, Lenke LG, Schwab F, Baldus C, Shainline M (2007) Is the SRS-22 instrument responsive to change in adult scoliosis patients having primary spinal deformity surgery? Spine 32(20):2220–2225. doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e31814cf120

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Baldus C, Bridwell KH, Harrast J, Edwards C 2nd, Glassman S, Horton W, Lenke LG, Lowe T, Mardjetko S, Ondra S, Schwab F, Shaffrey C (2008) Age-gender matched comparison of SRS instrument scores between adult deformity and normal adults: are all SRS domains disease specific? Spine 33(20):2214–2218. doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e31817c0466

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Fairbank JC, Pynsent PB (2000) The Oswestry disability index. Spine 25(22):2940–2952 (discussion 2952)

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Mehra A, Baker D, Disney S, Pynsent PB (2008) Oswestry Disability Index scoring made easy. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 90(6):497–499. doi:10.1308/003588408X300984

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Ware JE Jr (2000) SF-36 health survey update. Spine 25(24):3130–3139

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. SAGE Publications I SF-36® Health Survey. Encyclopedia of Epidemiology. SAGE Publications, Inc. SAGE Publications, Inc., Thousand Oaks, CA. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781412953948

  43. Frampton CL, Hughes-Webb P (2011) The measurement of pain. Clin Oncol 23(6):381–386. doi:10.1016/j.clon.2011.04.008

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Berven S, Deviren V, Demir-Deviren S, Hu S, Bradford D (2005) Minimal clinically important difference in adult spinal deformity: how much change is significant? In: Paper presented at the 12th International Meeting for Advanced Spine Techniques, Banff, Canada

  45. Durlak JA (2009) How to select, calculate, and interpret effect sizes. J Pediatr Psychol 34(9):917–928. doi:10.1093/jpepsy/jsp004

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Glassman SD, Bridwell K, Dimar JR, Horton W, Berven S, Schwab F (2005) The impact of positive sagittal balance in adult spinal deformity. Spine 30(18):2024–2029

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We gratefully acknowledge Brenda Sides from the research team of Lawrence G. Lenke, M.D., Washington University School of Medicine, for providing the SRS data from the Rose et al. [22] study. We would also like to acknowledge an anonymous reviewer for helpful comments during manuscript preparation. This study was financially supported by funds from the regional agreement on medical training and clinical research (ALF) between Stockholm County Council and Karolinska Institutet, Karolinska Institutet research funds, and the Swedish Research Council (Projects K2013-99X-22268-01-3 and K2013-52X-22198-01-3).

Conflict of interest

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Clinical and Rehabilitation Services, Faculty of Health Science and Medicine, Bond Institute of Health and Sport, Bond University, 2 Promethean Way, Robina, QLD, 4226, Australia

    Jennifer Theis & Allan Abbott

  2. Department of Orthopaedics, Department of Clinical Science, Intervention and Technology (CLINTEC), Karolinska Institutet, Karolinska University Hospital, 141 86, Stockholm, Sweden

    Paul Gerdhem

  3. Department of Physical Therapy, Karolinska University Hospital, 141 86, Stockholm, Sweden

    Allan Abbott

  4. Division of Physiotherapy, Department of Neurobiology, Care Sciences and Society, Karolinska Institutet, 141 86, Stockholm, Sweden

    Allan Abbott

Authors
  1. Jennifer Theis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Paul Gerdhem
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Allan Abbott
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jennifer Theis.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Theis, J., Gerdhem, P. & Abbott, A. Quality of life outcomes in surgically treated adult scoliosis patients: a systematic review. Eur Spine J 24, 1343–1355 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-014-3593-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-014-3593-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation