Introduction. 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. Aim. To review instruments that have been created to evaluate poor trunk appearance in these children. Material and methods. PubMed database and the Consortium of Libraries of Serbia for Unified Acquisition - KoBSON were searched using the keywords "adolescent scoliosis", "aesthetic appearance", "evaluation" and "questionnaires". Results. 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. Conclusion. Each clinical examination should include a specific assessment of trunk asymmetry. Various instruments were developed with the goal of decreasing x-ray radiation exposure in these patients.
References
1.
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(1).
2.
Navarro IJRL, Rosa BN da, 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;69:112–20.
3.
Knott P, Sturm P, Lonner B, Cahill P, Betsch M, McCarthy R, et al. Multicenter Comparison of 3D Spinal Measurements Using Surface Topography With Those From Conventional Radiography. Spine Deformity. 2016;4(2):98–103.
4.
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. Annals of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine. 2020;63(3):216–21.
5.
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). Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research. 2018;13(1).
6.
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. Quality of Life Research. 2013;22(7):1633–45.
7.
Rigo M, D’agata E, Jelacic M. Trunk Appearance Perception Scale (TAPS) discrepancy between scoliosis children and their parents influence the SRS-22 secore. Scoliosis. 2012;7(S1).
8.
Carreon LY, Sanders JO, Polly DW, Sucato DJ, Parent S, Roy-Beaudry M, et al. Spinal Appearance Questionnaire. Spine. 2011;36(18):E1240–4.
9.
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(1).
10.
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(1).
11.
Frerich JM, Hertzler K, Knott P, Mardjetko S. Comparison of Radiographic and Surface Topography Measurements in Adolescents with Idiopathic Scoliosis. The Open Orthopaedics Journal. 2012;6(1):261–5.
12.
Stolinski L, Kozinoga M, Czaprowski D, Tyrakowski M, Cerny P, Suzuki N, 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(1).
13.
Suzuki N, Inami K, Ono T. Analysis of Posterior Trunk Symmetry Index (POTSI) in Scoliosis. 1999;59:81–4.
14.
Stolinski L, Kotwicki T, Czaprowski D, Chowanska J. Analysis of anterior trunk symmetry index (ATSI). Preliminary report. Scoliosis. 2013;8(S1).
15.
Illés T, Tunyogi-Csapó M, Somoskeöy S. Breakthrough in three-dimensional scoliosis diagnosis: significance of horizontal plane view and vertebra vectors. European Spine Journal. 2011;20(1):135–43.
16.
Bago J, Sanchez-Raya J, Perez-Grueso FJS, 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;5(1).
17.
Sanders JO, Harrast JJ, Kuklo TR, Polly DW, Bridwell KH, Diab M, et al. The Spinal Appearance Questionnaire. Spine. 2007;32(24):2719–22.
18.
Sanders JO, W. Polly D, Cats-Baril W, Jones J, Lenke LG, O’Brien MF, et al. Analysis of Patient and Parent Assessment of Deformity in Idiopathic Scoliosis Using the Walter Reed Visual Assessment Scale. Spine. 2003;28(18):2158–63.
19.
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. The Spine Journal. 2017;17(9):1364–72.
20.
Asher MA, Min Lai S, Burton DC. Further Development and Validation of the Scoliosis Research Society (SRS) Outcomes Instrument. Spine. 2000;25(18):2381–6.
21.
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. Clinical Rehabilitation. 2019;33(8):1404–15.
22.
Kotwicki T, Negrini S, Grivas TB, Rigo M, Maruyama T, 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(1).
23.
Lonstein JE. Scoliosis. Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research. 2006;443:248–59.
24.
Weinstein SL. The Natural History of Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis. Journal of Pediatric Orthopaedics. 2019;39(Supplement 1):S44–6.
25.
Weinstein SL, Dolan LA, Spratt KF, Peterson KK, Spoonamore MJ, Ponseti IV. Health and Function of Patients With Untreated Idiopathic Scoliosis. JAMA. 2003;289(5):559.
26.
Negrini S, Donzelli S, Aulisa AG, Czaprowski D, Schreiber S, de Mauroy JC, et al. 2016 SOSORT guidelines: orthopaedic and rehabilitation treatment of idiopathic scoliosis during growth. Scoliosis and Spinal Disorders. 2018;13(1).
27.
Konieczny MR, Senyurt H, Krauspe R. Epidemiology of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Journal of Children’s Orthopaedics. 2013;7(1):3–9.
The statements, opinions and data contained in the journal are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publisher and the editor(s). We stay neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
