Utilizing formal consensus-building methods in a large group of surgeons experienced in treating early-onset scoliosis, a novel classification system for early-onset scoliosis was developed with all core components demonstrating substantial to excellent interobserver reliability. This classification system will serve as a foundation to guide ongoing research efforts and standardize communication in the clinical setting.

The final products represent the consensus of a group of expert spine surgeons. The checklist includes the most important and high-yield items to consider when responding to IONM changes in patients with a stable spine, whereas the IONM guideline represents the group consensus on items that should be considered best practice among IONM teams with the appropriate resources.

Compared with healthy peers, congenital scoliosis patients treated with early spinal fusion have worse PFT and QOL scores at 6.9 years follow up. Patients with thoracic fusions had shorter spines, worse pulmonary function, and more pain than nonthoracic fused. The results may support alternatives to early spinal fusion such as growing rods, epiphysiodesis, and distraction thoracoplasty. Current efforts are underway to compare outcomes of this study to those of other treatments.

No abstract

Introduction The goal of early-onset scoliosis (EOS) treatment is to improve health-related quality of life (HRQoL) for patients and to reduce the burden on their parents or caregivers. The purpose of this study is to develop and finalize the 24-item Early-Onset Scoliosis Questionnaire (EOSQ-24), and examine the validity, reliability, and responsiveness of the EOSQ-24 in measuring patients’ HRQoL, the burden on their caregivers, and the burden on their caregiver’s finances. The study also established aged-matched normative values for the EOSQ-24. Methods The EOSQ-24 was administered to caregivers of male and female patients aged 0 to 18 years with EOS. Patients with EOS are diagnosed before 10 years of age. Criterion validity was investigated by measuring agreement between its scores and pulmonary function testing. Construct validity was established by comparing values across different etiology groups using the known-group method, and measuring internal consistency reliability. Content validity was confirmed by reviewing caregiver and health provider ratings for the relativity and clarity of the EOSQ-24 questions. Test-retest reliability was examined through intraclass correlation coefficients. Responsiveness of the EOSQ-24 before and after surgical interventions was also investigated. Age-matched, healthy patients, without spinal deformity, were enrolled to establish normative EOSQ-24 values. Results The pulmonary function subdomain score in the EOSQ-24 was positively correlated with pulmonary function testing values, establishing criterion validity. The EOSQ-24 scores for neuromuscular patients were significantly decreased compared with idiopathic or congenital/structural patients, demonstrating known-group validity. Internal consistency reliability of patients’ HRQoL was excellent (0.92), but Family Burden was questionable (0.64) indicating that Parental Burden and Financial Burden should be in separate domains. All 24 EOSQ items were rated as essential and clear, confirming content validity. All EOSQ-24 domains demonstrated good to excellent agreement (0.68 to 0.98) between test and retest scores. Neuromuscular patients improved their HRQoL postoperatively, whereas idiopathic patients worsened their HRQoL postoperatively, indicating the ability of the instrument to respond to different trajectories of HRQoL according to etiology in patients with EOS. Discussion The developed and finalized EOSQ-24 is a valid, reliable, and responsive instrument that is able to serve as a patient-reported outcome measure evaluating health status for patients with EOS and burden of their caregivers. This instrument will be able to serve as an outcome measure for future research including clinical trials evaluating the effectiveness of various treatments. In addition, the EOSQ-24 allows assessment of patients’ HRQoL, and the burden on their caregivers relative to age-matched healthy peers. Level of Evidence Level II—diagnostic study with consecutive patients enrolled in national registries.