MINOR BACK ASYMMETRY AND EARLY ADOLESCENT IDIOPATHIC SCOLIOSIS

Introduction: The arguments for and against school screening for scoliosis are long since over, and centres have continued or ceased as they thought best and as funding allowed. However, the programmes did amass considerable volumes of observations that, being part of the over-all epidemiological picture, could advance our understanding of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis and of minor asymmetries of back shape. Methods and Results: A retrospective examination of the records from the school screening programme at this centre concentrated on subjects with minor asymmetry, those who at first review did not qualify as ‘scoliosis’ yet were noted to have failed the forward bend test. There were 91,811 examinations on 55,484 girls: 2170 were classified as ‘non-scoliosis asymmetry’. Of these, 1574 were noted but not referred; 360 were reviewed in clinic without radiograph,; 107 had straight spines on radiograph and 221 had Cobb angles 25°, it was 0.14%; for scoliosis =>40°, 0.092%; and 0.046% for surgery, none of which shows a significant difference from the equivalent rates for the population as a whole. (0.6% Cobb angle =>10°, 0.2% Cobb angle =>25°, 0.08% Cobb angle =>40°, 0.045% surgery. (Goldberg CJ et al. (1995). Spine. 20(12):1368–1374). Conclusion: These findings are in accordance with previous reports on school screening, and it is not proposed to re-open the discussion. Their relevance is their relationship to significant scoliosis: since these children are not at increased risk of developing deformity, they cannot be, as has been proposed (Nissinen et al (2000) Spine. 25:570–574) instances of mild or early scoliosis, and they do not need intensive investigation, follow-up or treatment. Non-scoliosis asymmetry is closer to the increased fluctuating asymmetry displayed by this age group (Wilson and Manning. (1996) Journal of Human Evolution. 30:529–537) and begs a more biological approach to spinal deformity, asymmetry and back shape.