Cosmetic evaluation in type II congenital scoliosis with long-spanned curve: a case-matched comparison with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis

BACKGROUND: There is an acknowledged discrepancy between radiographic and cosmetic parameters for patients with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS). However, no study has specifically evaluated cosmesis in patients with congenital scoliosis (CS). Therefore, the purpose of this study was to identify the cosmetic differences between patients with CS and case-matched patients with AIS and to investigate the correlation between radiological measurements and clinical cosmetic assessment indices. METHODS: A total of 37 adolescents with CS and 37 sex-, age-, and curve magnitude-matched patients with AIS were included. Cobb angle, shoulder height difference (SHD), coronal balance (CB), T1 tilt, first rib angle (FRA), clavicle angle (CA), clavicle-rib cage intersection (CRCI), and apical vertebra translation (AVT) were measured in the full X-ray of the spine. Shoulder area index 1 (SAI1), shoulder area index 2 (SAI2), shoulder angle (SA), axilla angle (AA), thoracolumbar area index (TLAI), and right and left waist angle difference (RLWAD) were measured on the clinical images from a posterior view. Hump index (HI) was measured in the forward bending photography. All patients completed the Scoliosis Research Society-22 (SRS-22) questionnaire. RESULTS: No significant difference was noted in the radiographic parameters between the AIS and CS groups (P>0.05). However, patients with CS exhibited significantly lower SAI1 (0.91 vs. 0.98; P=0.002) and SAI2 (0.85 vs. 0.95; P=0.001) than did the patients with AIS. The SRS-22 scores for self-image and mental health in patients with CS were significantly lower than those in patients with AIS (P<0.05). The correlation coefficients with statistical significance between radiographic and cosmetic measurements in patients with CS and those with AIS ranged from –0.493 to 0.534 and from –0.653 to 0.717, respectively. None of the correlation coefficients exceeded 0.8, indicating that the current radiological indices only exhibited a limited level of consistency with patients’ cosmesis. CONCLUSIONS: As compared with age-, gender-, and curve pattern-matched patients with AIS, patients with CS exhibited worse cosmesis and had clinically significantly lower SRS-22 scores despite having relatively small clinical differences. Although the radiographic parameters may not always align with clinical presentation, this discrepancy could be observed in both patients with CS and those with AIS.