PT  - JOURNAL ARTICLE
AU  - Pizones, Javier
AU  - Moreno-Manzanaro, Lucía
AU  - Vila-Casademunt, Alba
AU  - Fernández-Baíllo, Nicomedes
AU  - Sánchez-Márquez, José
AU  - Talavera, Gloria
AU  - Obeid, Ibrahim
AU  - Alanay, Ahmet
AU  - Kleinstück, Frank
AU  - Pellisé, Ferran
AU  - Perez-Grueso, Francisco Javier Sánchez
ED - 
TI  - Adult Congenital Spine Deformity: Clinical Features and Motivations for Surgical Treatment
AID  - 10.14444/8157
DP  - 2021 Dec 01
TA  - International Journal of Spine Surgery
PG  - 1238--1245
VI  - 15
IP  - 6
4099  - https://www.ijssurgery.com/content/15/6/1238.short
4100  - https://www.ijssurgery.com/content/15/6/1238.full
SO  - Int J Spine Surg2021 Dec 01; 15
AB  - Background There is scarce information available about adult congenital spine deformity (ACSD) in the literature, especially its impact after the pediatric age. The aim was to define ACSD characteristics and to establish the drivers for surgical intervention.Methods Cross-sectional study of data collected in an adult deformity multicenter database. Only ACSD patients were included. Demographic and radiographic data, as well as patient-reported outcome measures, were assessed. Conservatively (C) vs surgically (S) treated patients were compared using Student t test, χ², and Mann-Whitney U test.Results Fifty-two patients were included. They were young adults (x = 37.7 years), mostly female (71%). Among them, 60% had single hemivertebrae (HV), 35% had multiple HV, and 5% had segmentation defects. Also, 75% had mainly coronal deformity (Cobb 62.5° ± 29.6) and 25% had sagittal deformity.Mean Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) was 29.6% ± 17 and mean Scoliosis Research Society 22-item survey (SRS-22) total score was 3.2 ± 0.8. Of note, mean SRS-22 self-image score was 2.8 ± 0.9 and 36-item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) physical function score was 40.9 ± 11.Thirty patients were treated conservatively (C), whereas 22 patients underwent surgery (S). No differences were found regarding age, type or location of the deformity, comorbidities, or radiographic parameters. Operated patients had worse Core Outcome Measurement Index (COMI) back scores (C: 3.8 ± 2.4 vs S: 6.7 ± 2.4; P = 0.004); worse SRS-22 self-image (C: 3 ± 0.9 vs S: 2.5 ± 0.9; P = 0.047), and SRS-22 total scores (C: 3.4 ± 0.8 vs S: 2.9 ± 0.7; P = 0.01); worse SF-36 physical component summary (C: 43.3 ± 10.8 vs S: 36.7 ± 10.4; P = 0.048); and worse SF-36 physical role, function, and social function.Conclusion Adult congenital deformity patients were mainly female young adults, with formation defects (HV), worried about their image and presenting some degree of functional impairment and pain. These symptoms were the essential drivers for surgery, rather than the radiographic deformity itself.Clinical Relevance One of the few studies describing the characteristics and clinical concerns of patients with congenital spinal deformities.Level of Evidence 3.