Study design Retrospective cross-sectional study. Objective To analyze the patient demographic referred for scoliosis to the Hospital for Sick Children to determine the proportion of patients suitable for brace treatment, as per the Scoliosis Research Society guidelines. Summary of background data There is level 1 evidence that bracing in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) decreases the risk of curve progression and need for surgery, but optimal brace treatment requires early curve detection. Methods We performed a retrospective review of 618 consecutive patients who underwent initial assessment in our Spine Clinic between Jan. 1 and Dec. 31, 2014. We included children 10-18 years, with scoliosis greater than 10°, excluding those diagnosed with non-idiopathic curves. Primary outcomes were Cobb angle, menarchal status, and Risser score. We analyzed the effect of specific referral variables (family history, the person who first noticed the curve, and geographic location of residence) on presenting curve magnitude. Results During the study period, 335 children met the inclusion criteria, with an average age of 14.1 ± 1.8 years and a mean Cobb angle of 36.8 ± 14.5°. Brace treatment was indicated in 17% of patients; 18% had curves beyond optimal curve range for bracing (> 40°), and 55% were skeletally mature, therefore not brace candidates. The majority of curves (54%) were first detected by the patient or family member and averaged 7° more than curves first detected by a physician. A family history of scoliosis made no difference to curve magnitude, nor did geographic location of residence. Conclusion The majority of AIS patients present too late for effective management with bracing. Level of evidence III.

Study design Retrospective comparative review.Objective The aim of this study was to determine the short-term impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the demographic and clinical profile of new idiopathic scoliosis (IS) patients, with a particular focus on treatment and late referral. Summary of background dataThe COVID-19 pandemic has limited health-care services and public access and, as a result, the diagnosis and management of non-COVID-19 health conditions have been compromised. Delayed diagnosis of IS may limit conservative treatment options and subsequently, increase a patient's risk of requiring surgical intervention. Methods The volume of spine referrals received and new IS clinic visits were compared between March 15-October 15, 2019 and the same period in 2020. A chart and radiographic review detailed the patient profile at initial presentation. Descriptive statistics and comparative analyses examined the referral source, curve magnitude, skeletal maturity, and prescribed treatment. Late referrals were those with a curve magnitude ≥ 50°, or > 40° and Risser 2 or less. Results During the 2020 study period, the referral volume decreased 76% and clinic visits 55%. The 2019 cohort was similar in age (13.7 ± 2.1 years vs 13.3 ± 2.3 years, p = 0.08), Risser score distribution (p = 0.32), menarchal status (0.07), and curve magnitude (37.1° ± 3.8° vs 39.0° ± 16.0°, p = 0.22). During the pandemic, there was an increased proportion of referrals made by pediatricians (41 to 54%, p = 0.01). The proportion of brace prescriptions increased from 30 to 42% (p = 0.01). The proportion of surgical bookings and late referrals were increased but did not reach significance. Conclusion Despite no significant increase in the magnitude of the curve at initial presentation or the proportion of late referrals, there was a marked decrease in referral volume, over the first 7 months of the COVID-19 pandemic. This suggests that the majority of expected new IS patients remain undiagnosed. A future increase in late referrals should be anticipated. Level of evidence III.

Staged insertion of dual GR systems permits strong distraction, with acceptable correction of severe deformities and minimal complications. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.

Background To develop a priority-based patient/parent reported outcome measure for children with lower-limb differences (LD) by adapting the Gait Outcomes Assessment List (GOAL) questionnaire. Methods Guided by a conceptual framework of patient priorities, the GOAL questionnaire was iteratively modified and its sensibility evaluated by field-testing it on children with LD, and their parents. Cognitive interviews were conducted with a subgroup of these children, and an e-survey administered to a multidisciplinary group of health care professionals with expertise in paediatric LD. Findings were integrated to create the final version of the GOAL-LD. Results Twenty-five children (9–18 years), 20 parents, and 31 healthcare professionals evaluated the content and sensibility of the GOAL, with an emphasis on the relevance and importance of the items to patients’ health related quality of life (HRQL). This resulted in the retention of 26 of the original 50 items, elimination of 12, modification of 12, and addition of seven new items. The new 45-item GOAL-LD questionnaire was shown to be sensible, and its content deemed important. Conclusions The GOAL-LD questionnaire has a high level of face and content validity, and sensibility. It comprehensively captures the HRQL goals and outcomes that matter to children with LD and their parents. Following further psychometric evaluation, the GOAL-LD may serve as a much needed patient and parent reported outcome measure for this population.

Background: To develop a priority-based patient/parent reported outcome measure for children with lower-limb differences (LD) by adapting the Gait Outcomes Assessment List (GOAL) questionnaire. Methods: Guided by a conceptual framework of patient priorities, the GOAL questionnaire was iteratively modified and its sensibility evaluated by field-testing it on children with LD, and their parents. Cognitive interviews were conducted with a subgroup of these children, and an e-survey administered to a multidisciplinary group of health care professionals with expertise in paediatric LD. Findings were integrated to create the final version of the GOAL-LD.Results: Twenty-five children (9-18 years), 20 parents, and 31 healthcare professionals evaluated the content and sensibility of the GOAL, with an emphasis on the relevance and importance of the items to patients’ health related quality of life (HRQL). This resulted in the retention of 26 of the original 50 items, elimination of 12, modification of 12, and addition of seven new items. The new 45-item GOAL-LD questionnaire was shown to be sensible and its content deemed important.Conclusions: The GOAL-LD questionnaire has a high level of face and content validity, and sensibility. It comprehensively captures the HRQL goals and outcomes that matter to children with LD and their parents. Following further psychometric evaluation, the GOAL-LD may serve as a much needed evaluate patient and parent reported outcome measure for this population.