Gravity-induced coronal plane joint moments in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis

Background Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis is the most common type of spinal deformity, and whilst the risk of progression appears to be biomechanically mediated (larger deformities are more likely to progress), the detailed biomechanical mechanisms driving progression are not well understood. Gravitational forces in the upright position are the primary sustained loads experienced by the spine. In scoliosis they are asymmetrical, generating moments about the spinal joints which may promote asymmetrical growth and deformity progression. Using 3D imaging modalities to estimate segmental torso masses allows the gravitational loading on the scoliotic spine to be determined. The resulting distribution of joint moments aids understanding of the mechanics of scoliosis progression. Methods Existing low-dose CT scans were used to estimate torso segment masses and joint moments for 20 female scoliosis patients. Intervertebral joint moments at each vertebral level were found by summing the moments of each of the torso segment masses above the required joint. Results The patients’ mean age was 15.3 years (SD 2.3; range 11.9 – 22.3 years); mean thoracic major Cobb angle 52° (SD 5.9°; range 42°-63°) and mean weight 57.5 kg (SD 11.5 kg; range 41 – 84.7 kg). Joint moments of up to 7 Nm were estimated at the apical level. No significant correlation was found between the patients’ major Cobb angles and apical joint moments. Conclusions Patients with larger Cobb angles do not necessarily have higher joint moments, and curve shape is an important determinant of joint moment distribution. These findings may help to explain the variations in progression between individual patients. This study suggests that substantial corrective forces are required of either internal instrumentation or orthoses to effectively counter the gravity-induced moments acting to deform the spinal joints of idiopathic scoliosis patients.

What the problem may be with family intervention . . . and with dissemination more generally: A commentary

While the two decades since the study by Kavanagh et al. (1993) has given additional insights into effective dissemination of family interventions, the accompanying papers show that progress remains limited. The effectiveness trial that triggered this series of papers offers a cautionary tale. Despite management support, 30–35 hr of workshop training and training of local supervisors who could act as champions, use of the full intervention was limited. In part, this seemed due to the demanding nature of the intervention and its incompatibility with practitioners’ roles, in part, to limitations in the training, among other factors. While the accompanying papers note these and other barriers to dissemination, they miss a more disturbing finding in the original paper: Practitioners said they were using several aspects in routine care, despite being unable to accurately describe what they were. This finding highlights the risks in taking practitioners’ reports of their practice in files or supervision sessions at face value and potentially has implications for reports of other clinical work. The fidelity of disseminated treatments can only be assured by audits of practice, accompanied by affirming but also corrective feedback.