Patient and Parental Perception of Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis Before and After Surgery in Comparison with Surface and Radiographic Measurements
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: This prospective 2-year follow-up study evaluated patients treated surgically for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS). OBJECTIVE: To report parents' perception, patients' perception, and pain and disability before and after surgery and to examine their relationship to anthropometric, back surface, and radiographic measurements. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: No longitudinal studies have examined these factors and their interrelationships. METHODS: Between 1995 and 1999, 39 AIS patients treated by anterior or posterior USS (Universal Spine System, Stratec, Oberdorf, Switzerland) instrumentation had complete prospective questionnaire, back surface, and radiographic appraisal. RESULTS: The preoperative Visual Analogue Score (VAS) for pain-predominantly mild backache-was 24 mm (range, 0-78 mm), and the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) score was 9.2% (0-44.4%). Patients and parents wanted surgery to correct spinal curvature, stop curve progression, and correct the rib-hump (thoracic) and hip and waist asymmetry (thoracolumbar curves). The maximum angle of trunk inclination correlated with VAS and with short-form McGill Pain Questionnaire scores for thoracic curves (P = 0.005, Spearman rank correlation coefficient). Apical vertebral translation correlated with short-form McGill scores and ODI for thoracolumbar curves (P < 0.006, Spearman rank correlation coefficient). Parents rated scoliosis problems more severely than did their children (P < 0.0001, repeated measures of multivariate analysis of variants). There was no change in body image, VAS, ODI, or short-form McGill scores by 2 years' follow-up. Parents and patients perceived scoliosis problems to be less by 2 years' follow-up (P < 0.0005, Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed ranks test). The preoperative surface asymmetry score correlated with the patients' grading of their rib-hump (P = 0.007). CONCLUSIONS: Back pain incidence was higher than reported for healthy adolescents. Oswestry Disability Index was within normal adult limits. Pain varied by curve type, related to the maximum angle of trunk inclination and the maximum apical vertebral translation. After surgery, back pain and ODI were unchanged, but concerns regarding scoliosis were reduced.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".