Does postoperative shoulder imbalance affect patient reported functional outcomes after posterior surgical correction of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

IF 1.8 Q3 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Alan Maximiliano Gessara, Siddharth Shah, Mostafa ELMeshneb, Akshay Gadiya, Masood Shafafy, Michael Grevitt, Shakil Mohammed Patel
{"title":"Does postoperative shoulder imbalance affect patient reported functional outcomes after posterior surgical correction of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis? A systematic review and meta-analysis.","authors":"Alan Maximiliano Gessara, Siddharth Shah, Mostafa ELMeshneb, Akshay Gadiya, Masood Shafafy, Michael Grevitt, Shakil Mohammed Patel","doi":"10.1007/s43390-025-01148-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Failure to balance the shoulders whilst surgically correcting AIS has been reported in many publications as being associated with negative PROMS. However, the evidence to support this, in our opinion, is limited. The purpose of this study was to systematically review the literature and perform a meta-analysis to identify whether postoperative shoulder imbalance affects patient reported outcome measures.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted on the available literature comparing clinical and/or radiographic features of postoperative shoulder imbalance following surgery for AIS with patient reported outcome measures.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Thirteen studies with 924 patients were included. The mean follow-up was 3.7 years (2-16). The incidence of radiographic PSI was 30.1% and clinical PSI was 22.7%. A mix of validated (most commonly used SRS-22) and nonvalidated PROMs were used. Studies using radiographic PSI assessment showed no difference in PROMs for most validated scores. Clinical assessment studies showed that patients with even shoulders were also unsatisfied with their appearance. Meta-analysis of the extractable and analysable data showed no significant difference in PSI vs No-PSI in SRS-22.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Contrary to popular belief, the findings of this systematic review and meta-analysis demonstrate that PSI is not associated with negative PROM using validated outcome measures.</p>","PeriodicalId":21796,"journal":{"name":"Spine deformity","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Spine deformity","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s43390-025-01148-2","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: Failure to balance the shoulders whilst surgically correcting AIS has been reported in many publications as being associated with negative PROMS. However, the evidence to support this, in our opinion, is limited. The purpose of this study was to systematically review the literature and perform a meta-analysis to identify whether postoperative shoulder imbalance affects patient reported outcome measures.

Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted on the available literature comparing clinical and/or radiographic features of postoperative shoulder imbalance following surgery for AIS with patient reported outcome measures.

Results: Thirteen studies with 924 patients were included. The mean follow-up was 3.7 years (2-16). The incidence of radiographic PSI was 30.1% and clinical PSI was 22.7%. A mix of validated (most commonly used SRS-22) and nonvalidated PROMs were used. Studies using radiographic PSI assessment showed no difference in PROMs for most validated scores. Clinical assessment studies showed that patients with even shoulders were also unsatisfied with their appearance. Meta-analysis of the extractable and analysable data showed no significant difference in PSI vs No-PSI in SRS-22.

Conclusion: Contrary to popular belief, the findings of this systematic review and meta-analysis demonstrate that PSI is not associated with negative PROM using validated outcome measures.

青少年特发性脊柱侧凸后路矫正术后肩部不平衡是否影响患者报告的功能结果?系统回顾和荟萃分析。
目的:许多出版物报道,在手术纠正AIS时肩部不能平衡与负性PROMS有关。然而,在我们看来,支持这一观点的证据是有限的。本研究的目的是系统地回顾文献并进行荟萃分析,以确定术后肩部不平衡是否影响患者报告的结果测量。方法:对现有文献进行系统回顾和荟萃分析,比较AIS术后肩部失衡的临床和/或影像学特征与患者报告的结果测量。结果:纳入13项研究,924例患者。平均随访3.7年(2-16年)。影像学上PSI的发生率为30.1%,临床为22.7%。混合使用经过验证的prom(最常用的是SRS-22)和未经验证的prom。使用放射学PSI评估的研究显示,对于大多数验证分数,prom没有差异。临床评估研究表明,肩部平坦的患者对自己的外观也不满意。可提取和可分析数据的荟萃分析显示,PSI与无PSI在rs -22中的差异无统计学意义。结论:与普遍看法相反,本系统综述和荟萃分析的结果表明,使用经过验证的结果测量,PSI与阴性PROM无关。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.20
自引率
18.80%
发文量
167
期刊介绍: Spine Deformity the official journal of the?Scoliosis Research Society is a peer-refereed publication to disseminate knowledge on basic science and clinical research into the?etiology?biomechanics?treatment?methods and outcomes of all types of?spinal deformities. The international members of the Editorial Board provide a worldwide perspective for the journal's area of interest.The?journal?will enhance the mission of the Society which is to foster the optimal care of all patients with?spine?deformities worldwide. Articles published in?Spine Deformity?are Medline indexed in PubMed.? The journal publishes original articles in the form of clinical and basic research. Spine Deformity will only publish studies that have institutional review board (IRB) or similar ethics committee approval for human and animal studies and have strictly observed these guidelines. The minimum follow-up period for follow-up clinical studies is 24 months.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信