Columbia University Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York, USA.
Children's Orthopedic Center, Children's Hospital Los Angeles, 4650 Sunset Blvd, MS#69, Los Angeles, CA, 90027, USA.
Spine Deform. 2020 Dec;8(6):1185-1192. doi: 10.1007/s43390-020-00157-7. Epub 2020 Jun 26.
Retrospective.
The aim of this study is to evaluate if standing in a Schroth trained position influences the radiographic assessment of Cobb angle and other radiographic parameters compared to a normal standing position. Schroth method has been associated with improved Cobb angle. This study aims to evaluate if standing in the Schroth trained position influences radiographic assessment of Cobb angle compared to a normal standing position.
This is a retrospective review of patients with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) who were participating in Schroth therapy at the time of radiographs. Ten pairs of radiographs were included in this study. Each pair consisted of two micro-dose biplanar PA thoracolumbar spine radiographs obtained on the same day, one with the patient standing in the Schroth trained position and one in their normal standing position. Each pair of radiographs was independently evaluated by three attending pediatric spine surgeons for Cobb angle, coronal balance, shoulder balance, and leg length discrepancy, for a total of 30 paired readings (3 readings for each of the 10 pairs of radiographs).
Major Cobb angle was a mean of 6° less (p = 0.02) and the compensatory curve was 5° less (p = 0.03) in the Schroth trained position compared to their normal standing position. Neither coronal balance (p = 0.40) nor shoulder balance (p = 0.16) was significantly different. Mean leg length discrepancy was 6.8 mm greater in the Schroth trained versus normal position (p < 0.001).
Standing in a Schroth trained position for a PA spine radiograph was associated with a mean change in major Cobb angle of 6° compared to a normal standing position. If bracing was recommended for curves > 25° and surgery for curves > 45°, different treatment recommendations would have been made in 33% (10/30) of attendings' readings for the Schroth versus normally paired radiographs taken on the same day on the same patient. Studies evaluating the effect of Schroth therapy on Cobb angle must report if patients are standing in a normal or Schroth trained position during radiographs for conclusions to be valid, or differences may be due to a temporary, voluntary change in posture.
III.
回顾性研究。
本研究旨在评估与正常站立位相比,施罗特训练位是否会影响 Cobb 角的放射学评估以及其他放射学参数。施罗特疗法已被证明可改善 Cobb 角。本研究旨在评估与正常站立位相比,施罗特训练位是否会影响 Cobb 角的放射学评估。
这是一项回顾性研究,纳入了当时正在接受施罗特治疗的青少年特发性脊柱侧凸(AIS)患者。本研究纳入了 10 对放射影像。每对影像均由同一天拍摄的两张微剂量双平面胸腰椎前后位片组成,一张为患者施罗特训练位,另一张为正常站立位。每对影像均由三位主治儿科脊柱外科医生独立评估 Cobb 角、冠状面平衡、肩部平衡和双下肢长度差异,共 30 对读数(每对影像各 3 个读数)。
与正常站立位相比,施罗特训练位的主要 Cobb 角平均小 6°(p=0.02),代偿性曲线小 5°(p=0.03)。冠状面平衡(p=0.40)和肩部平衡(p=0.16)无显著差异。施罗特训练位与正常位相比,下肢长度差异平均大 6.8mm(p<0.001)。
与正常站立位相比,施罗特训练位的 PA 脊柱放射影像中,主要 Cobb 角的平均变化为 6°。如果推荐支具治疗 25°以上的曲线,手术治疗 45°以上的曲线,则在同一天对同一位患者拍摄的施罗特与正常配对放射影像中,33%(10/30)的主治医生读数会导致不同的治疗建议。评估施罗特疗法对 Cobb 角影响的研究必须报告患者在放射检查时是处于正常站立位还是施罗特训练位,以确保结论有效,否则差异可能是由于姿势的暂时、自愿改变。
III 级。