Abstract
Introduction: The arguments for and against school screening for scoliosis are long since over, and centres have continued or ceased as they thought best and as funding allowed. However, the programmes did amass considerable volumes of observations that, being part of the over-all epidemiological picture, could advance our understanding of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis and of minor asymmetries of back shape.
Methods and Results: A retrospective examination of the records from the school screening programme at this centre concentrated on subjects with minor asymmetry, those who at first review did not qualify as ‘scoliosis’ yet were noted to have failed the forward bend test. There were 91,811 examinations on 55,484 girls: 2170 were classified as ‘non-scoliosis asymmetry’. Of these, 1574 were noted but not referred; 360 were reviewed in clinic without radiograph,; 107 had straight spines on radiograph and 221 had Cobb angles < 10°. Eleven are known to have progressed to 10° or more, three passed 25°, two passed 40° and one underwent surgery. This gives an incidence in this subgroup of 0.51% for defined scoliosis. For scoliosis => 25°, it was 0.14%; for scoliosis => 40°, 0.092%; and 0.046% for surgery, none of which shows a significant difference from the equivalent rates for the population as a whole. (0.6% Cobb angle => 10°, 0.2% Cobb angle => 25°, 0.08% Cobb angle => 40°, 0.045% surgery. (Goldberg CJ et al. (1995). Spine. 20(12):1368–1374).
Conclusion: These findings are in accordance with previous reports on school screening, and it is not proposed to re-open the discussion. Their relevance is their relationship to significant scoliosis: since these children are not at increased risk of developing deformity, they cannot be, as has been proposed (Nissinen et al (2000) Spine. 25:570–574) instances of mild or early scoliosis, and they do not need intensive investigation, follow-up or treatment. Non-scoliosis asymmetry is closer to the increased fluctuating asymmetry displayed by this age group (Wilson and Manning. (1996) Journal of Human Evolution. 30:529–537) and begs a more biological approach to spinal deformity, asymmetry and back shape.
Abstracts prepared by Mr J. Dorgan. Correspondence should be addressed to him at the Royal Liverpool Children’s Hospital, Alder Hey, Eaton Road, Liverpool L12 2AP, UK
President’s Lecture: Natural history and management of Congenital Kyphosis and Kyphoscoliosis M.J. McMaster, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK
Greg Houghton Lecture: Idiopathic Scoliosis – Alternatives to traditional surgery R.R. Betz, Philadelphia, USA
Instructional Lecture:New thoughts on the treatment of paralytic scoliosis R.R. Betz, Philadelphia, USA
Keynote Lectures: Idiopathic Scoliosis – How to manage the patient R.A. Dickson, Leeds, UK
Concave or convex approach for Kyphoscoliosis J. Dubousset, Paris, France Surgery or bracing for moderate AIS. How long term follow-up studies change your perspective A. Nachemson, Göteborg, Sweden
