Outcome assessment in idiopathic scoliosis should probably include patients' perception of their trunk deformity in addition to self-image. This can be accomplished with the Walter Reed Visual Assessment Scale (WRVAS). Nevertheless, this instrument has some shortcomings: the drawings are abstract and some figures do not relate to the corresponding radiological deformity. These considerations prompted us to design the Trunk Appearance Perception Scale (TAPS).

Study Design: Cross-sectional study in patients with idiopathic scoliosis treated with spinal fusion. Objectives: To measure lumbar spine mobility in the study population; determine low back pain intensity (LBPi), subjective perception of trunk flexibility (TF), and quality of life using validated outcome instruments; and investigate correlations of the lower instrumented vertebra (LIV) with TF, LBPi, and quality of life. Summary of Background Data: The loss of range of motion resulting from spinal fusion might lead to low back pain, trunk rigidity, and a negative impact on quality of life. Nonetheless, these outcomes have not been conclusively demonstrated because lumbar mobility and LIV have not been correlated with validated outcome instruments. Methods: Forty-one patients (mean age, 27 y) with idiopathic scoliosis treated by spinal fusion (mean time since surgery, 135 mo) were included. Patients were assigned to 3 groups according to LIV level: group 1 (fusion to T12, L1, or L2) 14 patients; group 2 (fusion to L3) 13 patients, and group 3 (fusion to L4, L5, or S1) 14 patients. At midterm follow-up, patients completed the Scoliosis Research Society (SRS)-22 Questionnaire and Quality of Life Profile for Spine Deformities to evaluate perceived TF, and rated LBPi with a numerical scale. Lumbar mobility was assessed using a dual digital inclinometer. Results: Group 3 (fusion to L4, L5, or S1) showed statistically significant differences relative to the other groups, with less lumbar mobility and poorer scores for the SRS subtotal (P=0.003) and SRS pain scale (P=0.01). Nevertheless, LBPi and TF were similar in the 3 groups. TF correlated with SRS-22 subtotal (r=−0.38, P=0.01) and pain scale (r=−0.42, P=0.007) scores, and with LBPi (r=0.43, P=0.005). Conclusions: LIV correlated moderately with lumbar mobility, health-related quality of life (SRS-22), and spinal pain (SRS-22 pain subscale), but not with intensity of pain in the lumbar area or perceived TF.

(1) Background: Previous data show that patients with idiopathic scoliosis (IS) can be classified into two groups according to pain intensity. This paper aims to determine which factors can independently predict the likelihood of belonging to a high-level pain group. (2) Methods: The study used a prospective, multicenter, cross-sectional design. Two-hundred and seventy-two patients with IS (mean age 18.1 years) (females 83.5%) were included. The sample was divided into two groups. The PAIN group comprised 101 patients (37.1%) with an average NRS of 5.3. The NO-PAIN group consisted of 171 patients (62.9%) with an average NRS of 1.1. Data on various factors such as comorbidities, family history, curve magnitude, type of treatment, absenteeism, anxiety, depression, kinesiophobia, family environment, and social relationships were collected. Statistical analysis consisted of multivariate logistic regression analysis to identify independent predictors of high-level pain. (3) Results: In the final model, including modifiable and non-modifiable predictors, age (OR 1.07 (1.02–1.11)); Absenteeism (OR 3.87 (1.52–9.87)), HAD anxiety (OR 1.18 (1.09–1.29)) and an indication for surgery (OR 2.87 (1.28–6.43)) were associated with an increased risk of pain. The overall model is significant at p = 0.0001 level and correctly predicts 72.6% of the responses. (4) Conclusions: Age, an indication for surgery, anxiety, and work/school absenteeism are the variables that independently determine the risk of belonging to the high-level pain group (NRS > 3).

Objetivo: Valorar el impacto en la calidad de vida que supone la utilización de distintos métodos de evacuación urinaria en pacientes con lesión medular, utilizando un cuestionario específico y validado al español: King's Health Questionnaire (KHQ). Material y métodos Estudio observacional y prospectivo con 91 pacientes (21 mujeres 23%, 70 hombres 77%) afectos de lesión medular que acudieron a la consulta durante marzo 2004 y diciembre del 2005, con media de edad 40 años (DS 13,4) y tiempo medio de evolución de la lesión 11,4 (DS 10,4)años. Los pacientes completaron el KHQ, así como una valoración subjetiva de los principales problemas relacionados con la lesión medular. Se clasificaron los pacientes en función del sistema de evacuación urinaria habitual en: Cateterismos Intermitentes (CI), Sondaje Vesical Permanente (SVP) y Colector Permanente (CP). Analizamos con el paquete estadístico SPSS 12.0 las diferencias entre las medias de las dimensiones del KHQ de los tres grupos. Resultados: La media de la puntuación total del KHQ fue de 39,9 puntos (DT 54,4), con mejor puntuación en el grupo portador de CP. Encontramos que no hay diferencias significativas, excepto en la dimensión de la limitación de los roles, donde obtienen mejor puntuación el grupo portador de CP que los de SVP y los CI (p=0,025). La sexualidad se presenta en primer lugar en la lista de problemas que más preocupa a los pacientes, seguidos de los trastornos de defecación y urinarios. Conclusión: El grupo con mejor puntuación global en el KHQ es el portador de CP, aunque no hay diferencias significativas entre los 3 grupos. Lo que más preocupa a nuestros pacientes son los problemas sexuales. Objectives: This study examines quality of life among patients with spinal cord injury requiring bladder management techniques, according to the validated King's Health Questionnaire (KHQ). Material and methods Prospective and observational study of 91 spinal cord-injured patients (21 women 23% and 70 men 77%). Mean age was 40 years (SD 13.4) and average time since spinal injury was 11.4 (SD 10.4) years. Patients completed the KHQ quality of life instrument and 10 additional questions related to urinary disturbance developed for the study, and filled in a form to subjectively rank their main concerns related to spinal injury. Patients were divided according to the bladder management techniques they regularly used: intermittent catheterization, condom catheter or indwelling catheter, and differences between the mean groups were assessed with de SPSS 13.0 stadistic pakagge. Results: The overall KHQ score for the sample was 39.9 (SD 54.4) with higher scores (poorer QoL) in patients using an indwelling catheter. A thorough analysis of the test showed no significant differences between the groups other than in the physical role limitation item (p=0.025). Patients using a condom catheter reported lower physical limitation scores (better QoL) than patients using an indwelling catheter or intermittent catheterization. Sexuality was the main concern of most patients, followed by bowel dysfunction, urinary incontinence and ambulation or gait problems. Conclusion: Patients treated with condom catheters reported the best quality of life according to KHQ scores, although there were no significant differences versus the other urinary management techniques. The patients’ main concern was related to sexuality.