Abstract
Study design
Cross-sectional
Objective
To examine the relationships between spine morphology, spine flexibility, and idiopathic scoliosis.
Background
Girls have a higher incidence of clinically significant scoliosis than boys, along with smaller vertebrae and greater flexibility. Based on biomechanical modeling, we hypothesized that smaller vertebral width relative to intervertebral disc (IVD) height would be associated with both greater lateral flexibility of the spine and with idiopathic scoliosis.
Methods
Magnetic resonance imaging was used to measure IVD height, vertebral width, and paraspinous musculature in 22 girls with mild and moderate idiopathic scoliosis and 29 girls without scoliosis ages 9–13 years. Clinical measurement of maximum lateral bending was also performed in the girls without scoliosis. A simple biomechanical model was used to estimate bending angle from the ratio of IVD height to vertebral half-width for L1–L4. The average ratio (Ravg) and calculated total bending angle (α tot) for L1–L4 were compared to the clinical measurements of lateral bending flexibility in the control group. These measures were also compared between the scoliosis and control groups.
Results
There was a significant positive relationship between clinical flexibility and both Ravg (p =.041) and αtot (p =.042) adjusting for skeletal age, height, body mass index, and paraspinous muscle area as covariates. The ratio was significantly higher (Ravg = 0.45 vs. 0.38, p <.0001) and the bending angle was significantly greater (αtot = 107° vs. 89°, p <.0001) for girls with scoliosis compared with controls.
Conclusion
These results suggest that differences in spine morphology and corresponding changes in spine flexibility may be related to idiopathic scoliosis. If these relationships can be corroborated in larger prospective studies, these easily measured morphologic traits may contribute to a better understanding of the etiology of idiopathic scoliosis and an improved ability to predict scoliosis progression.
Level of Evidence
Level III.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
National Scoliosis Foundation. Information and support, http://www.scoliosis.org/info.php; 2015. Accessed April 28, 2016.
Dayer R, Haumont T, Belaieff W, et al. Idiopathic scoliosis: etiological concepts and hypotheses. J Child Orthop 2013;7:11–6.
Weinstein SL, Dolan LA, Cheng JC, et al. Adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Lancet 2008;371:1527–37.
Burwell RG, Dangerfield PH, Moulton A, et al. Whither the etiopathogenesis (and scoliogeny) of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis? Incorporating presentations on scoliogeny at the 2012 IRSSD and SRS meetings. Scoliosis 2013;8:4.
Ponrartana S, Aggabao PC, Dharmavaram NL, et al. Sexual dimorphism in newborn vertebrae and its potential implications. J Pediatr 2015;167:416–21.
Arfai K, Pitukcheewanont PD, Goran MI, et al. Bone, muscle, and fat: sex-related differences in prepubertal children. Radiology 2002;224:338–44.
Gilsanz V, Boechat MI, Gilsanz R, et al. Gender differences in vertebral sizes in adults: biomechanical implications. Radiology 1994;190:678–82.
Middleditch A, Oliver J. Normal movement. In: Middleditch A, Oliver J, editors. Functional Anatomy of the Spine. 2nd ed. New York: Butterworth Heinemann; 2005. p. 173–208.
Haley SM, Tada WL, Carmichael EM. Spinal mobility in young children. A normative study. Phys Ther 1986;66:1697–703.
Larsson LG, Baum J, Mudholkar GS. Hypermobility: features and differential incidence between the sexes. Arthritis Rheum 1987;30:1426–30.
Penha PJ, Casarotto RA, Sacco ICN, et al. Qualitative postural analysis among boys and girls of seven to ten years of age. Rev Bras Fisioter 2008;12:386–91.
de Seze M, Cugy E. Pathogenesis of idiopathic scoliosis: a review. Ann Phys Rehabil Med 2012;55:128–38.
Scherrer SA, Begon M, Leardini A, et al. Three-dimensional vertebral wedging in mild and moderate adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. PLoS One 2013;8:e71504.
Stokes IA. Analysis and simulation of progressive adolescent scoliosis by biomechanical growth modulation. Eur Spine J 2007;16:1621–8.
Middleditch A, Oliver J. Intervertebral discs. In: Middleditch A, Oliver J, editors. Functional Anatomy of the Spine. 2nd ed. New York: Butterworth Heinemann; 2005. p. 63–86.
Sivakamasundari V, Lufkin T. Bridging the gap: understanding embryonic intervertebral disc development. Cell Dev Biol 2012;1.
Hodson GC. Vertebral body dimensions: an aid to diagnosis of severely progressive adolescent idiopathic scoliosis? Aust J Physiother 1984;30:39–41.
Taylor JR, Twomey LT. Sexual dimorphism in human vertebral body shape. J Anat 1984;138(pt 2):281–6.
Gilsanz V, Ratib O. Hand Bone Age: A Digital Atlas of Skeletal Maturity. Berlin: Springer-Verlag; 2005.
American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. Joint Motion, Method of Measuring and Recording. Chicago, IL: American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons; 1965. p. 48–51.
Czaprowski D. Generalised joint hypermobility in Caucasian girls with idiopathic scoliosis: relation with age, curve size, and curve pattern. Sci World J 2014;2014:370134.
Meyer C, Cammarata E, Haumont T, et al. Why do idiopathic scoliosis patients participate more in gymnastics? Scand J Med Sci Sports 2006;16:231–6.
Hellstrom M, Jacobsson B, Sward L, et al. Radiologic abnormalities of the thoraco-lumbar spine in athletes. Acta Radiol 1990;31:127–32.
Schiller JR, Eberson CP. Spinal deformity and athletics. Sports Med Arthrosc 2008;16:26–31.
Tanchev PI, Dzherov AD, Parushev AD, et al. Scoliosis in rhythmic gymnasts. Spine 2000;25:1367–72.
Warren MP, Brooks-Gunn J, Hamilton LH, et al. Scoliosis and fractures in young ballet dancers. Relation to delayed menarche and secondary amenorrhea. N Engl J Med 1986;314:1348–53.
Gilsanz V, Boechat MI, Roe TF, et al. Gender differences in vertebral body sizes in children and adolescents. Radiology 1994;190:673–7.
Cheng JC, Castelein RM, Chu WC, et al. Adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Nat Rev Dis Primers 2015;1:1–20.
Netter F. Anatomy of the abdomen. In: Oppenheimer E, editor. The Ciba Collection of Medical Illustrations, Volume 3: Digestive System, Part II: Lower Digestive Tract. St. Louis, MO: CIBA; 1973. p. 12–21.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Author disclosures
TALW (none); SP (none); EP (none); SM (none); PCA (none); TLZ (none); BRE (none); VG (none).
Funding Statement: This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Wren, T.A.L., Ponrartana, S., Poorghasamians, E. et al. Biomechanical Modeling of Spine Flexibility and Its Relationship to Spinal Range of Motion and Idiopathic Scoliosis. Spine Deform 5, 225–230 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jspd.2017.01.007
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jspd.2017.01.007