Curve type, flexibility, correction, and rotation are predictors of curve progression in patients with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis undergoing conservative treatment

Abstract

Aims The aim of this study was to review the current evidence surrounding curve type and morphology on curve progression risk in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS). Methods A comprehensive search was conducted by two independent reviewers on PubMed, Embase, Medline, and Web of Science to obtain all published information on morphological predictors of AIS progression. Search items included ‘adolescent idiopathic scoliosis’, ‘progression’, and ‘imaging’. The inclusion and exclusion criteria were carefully defined. Risk of bias of studies was assessed with the Quality in Prognostic Studies tool, and level of evidence for each predictor was rated with the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) approach. In all, 6,286 publications were identified with 3,598 being subjected to secondary scrutiny. Ultimately, 26 publications (25 datasets) were included in this review. Results For unbraced patients, high and moderate evidence was found for Cobb angle and curve type as predictors, respectively. Initial Cobb angle > 25° and thoracic curves were predictive of curve progression. For braced patients, flexibility < 28% and limited in-brace correction were factors predictive of progression with high and moderate evidence, respectively. Thoracic curves, high apical vertebral rotation, large rib vertebra angle difference, small rib vertebra angle on the convex side, and low pelvic tilt had weak evidence as predictors of curve progression. Conclusion For curve progression, strong and consistent evidence is found for Cobb angle, curve type, flexibility, and correction rate. Cobb angle > 25° and flexibility < 28% are found to be important thresholds to guide clinical prognostication. Despite the low evidence, apical vertebral rotation, rib morphology, and pelvic tilt may be promising factors. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(4):424–432.