Predictive factors for correction rate in severe idiopathic scoliosis (Cobb angle ≥ 90°): an analysis of 128 patients



Knowledge on the factors affecting the correction rate (CR) aids in the surgical planning among severe idiopathic scoliosis (IS) patients. This study aimed to investigate the independent factors affecting CR among patients with severe IS (Cobb angle ≥ 90°) who underwent single-staged posterior spinal fusion (PSF).


We retrospectively reviewed 128 severe IS patients who underwent single-staged PSF. Factors including age, height, weight, body mass index, Risser sign, Lenke subtypes, preoperative major Cobb angle, side bending major Cobb angle, side bending flexibility (SBF), motion segments of the major curve, AR curve, number of levels fused, screw density, operative time and postoperative major Cobb angle were analysed using linear regression analysis.


The mean age was 15.5 ± 4.5 years with mean Risser sign of 3.1 ± 1.6. The mean preoperative Cobb, SBF, postoperative Cobb and CR were 102.8 ± 12.3°, 37.5 ± 13.7%, 44.4 ± 13.5° and 57.2 ± 10.8%, respectively. From stepwise multiple linear regression analysis, SBF, Risser sign and AR curve were the independent predictive factors for CR, with R2 value of 0.345 (p < 0.001). CR can be predicted using the formula: 47.21 + (0.34 × SBF)–(1.47 × Risser sign) + (3.69 × AR), where AR = 1 and non-AR = 0.


The flexibility of the major curve, Risser sign and AR curve were the most important predictors for CR in a single-staged PSF among patients with severe IS.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4


  1. 1.

    Lenke LG, Kuklo TR, Ondra S, Polly DW Jr (2008) Rationale behind the current state-of-the-art treatment of scoliosis (in the pedicle screw era). Spine 33:1051–1054.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Kim YJ, Lenke LG, Cho SK, Bridwell KH, Sides B, Blanke K (2004) Comparative analysis of pedicle screw versus hook instrumentation in posterior spinal fusion of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Spine 29:2040–2048.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Suk SI, Lee CK, Kim WJ, Chung YJ, Park YB (1995) Segmental pedicle screw fixation in the treatment of thoracic idiopathic scoliosis. Spine 20:1399–1405

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Sanders JO, Diab M, Richards SB, Lenke LG, Johnston CE, Emans JB, Sucato DJ, Erickson MA, Bridwell KH, McCarthy RE, Sarwark JF, Dormans JP (2011) Fixation points within the main thoracic curve: does more instrumentation produce greater curve correction and improved results? Spine 36:E1402-1406.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Bharucha NJ, Lonner BS, Auerbach JD, Kean KE, Trobisch PD (2013) Low-density versus high-density thoracic pedicle screw constructs in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: do more screws lead to a better outcome? Spine J 13:375–381

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Lonner BS, Auerbach JD, Boachie-Adjei O, Shah SA, Hosogane N, Newton PO (2009) Treatment of thoracic scoliosis: are monoaxial thoracic pedicle screws the best form of fixation for correction? Spine 34:845–851.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Kwan MK, Chiu CK, Hasan MS, Tan SH, Loh LH, Yeo KS, Lee WH, Chan CYW (2019) Perioperative outcome of single stage posterior spinal fusion for severe adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) (Cobb angle >/=90 degrees ): the role of a dual attending surgeon strategy. Spine 44:E348–E356.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Mihara Y, Chung WH, Chiu CK, Hasan MS, Lee SY, Ch’ng PY, Chan CYW, Kwan MK (2020) Perioperative outcome of severe idiopathic scoliosis (Cobb angle≥ 90°): is there any difference between “daytime” versus “after-hours” surgeries? Spine 45:381–389

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Newton PO, Faro FD, Gollogly S, Betz RR, Lenke LG, Lowe TG (2005) Results of preoperative pulmonary function testing of adolescents with idiopathic scoliosis: a study of six hundred and thirty-one patients. J Bone Joint Surg Am 87:1937–1946

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Yaszay B, Bastrom TP, Bartley CE, Parent S, Newton PO (2017) The effects of the three-dimensional deformity of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis on pulmonary function. Eur Spine J 26:1658–1664

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Suk SI, Chung ER, Kim JH, Kim SS, Lee JS, Choi WK (2005) Posterior vertebral column resection for severe rigid scoliosis. Spine 30:1682–1687

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Kandwal P, Goswami A, Vijayaraghavan G, Subhash KR, Jaryal A, Upendra BN, Jayaswal A (2016) Staged anterior release and posterior instrumentation in correction of severe rigid scoliosis (Cobb angle >100 degrees). Spine Deform 4:296–303.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Shen J, Qiu G, Wang Y, Zhang Z, Zhao Y (2006) Comparison of 1-stage versus 2-stage anterior and posterior spinal fusion for severe and rigid idiopathic scoliosis–a randomized prospective study. Spine 31:2525–2528.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Di Silvestre M, Bakaloudis G, Lolli F, Vommaro F, Martikos K, Parisini P (2008) Posterior fusion only for thoracic adolescent idiopathic scoliosis of more than 80 degrees: pedicle screws versus hybrid instrumentation. Eur Spine J 17:1336–1349.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Miyanji F, Pawelek JB, Van Valin SE, Upasani VV, Newton PO (2008) Is the lumbar modifier useful in surgical decision making? Defining two distinct Lenke 1A curve patterns. Spine 33:2545–2551.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Kwan MK, Chan CY (2016) Is there an optimal upper instrumented vertebra (UIV) tilt angle to prevent post-operative shoulder imbalance and neck tilt in Lenke 1 and 2 adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) patients? Eur Spine J 25:3065–3074.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Burton DC, Sama AA, Asher MA, Burke SW, Boachie-Adjei O, Huang RC, Green DW, Rawlins BA (2005) The treatment of large (>70 degrees) thoracic idiopathic scoliosis curves with posterior instrumentation and arthrodesis: when is anterior release indicated? Spine 30:1979–1984.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Bullmann V, Halm HF, Schulte T, Lerner T, Weber TP, Liljenqvist UR (2006) Combined anterior and posterior instrumentation in severe and rigid idiopathic scoliosis. Eur Spine J 15:440–448.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Suk SI, Kim JH, Cho KJ, Kim SS, Lee JJ, Han YT (2007) Is anterior release necessary in severe scoliosis treated by posterior segmental pedicle screw fixation? Eur Spine J 16:1359–1365.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Hamzaoglu A, Ozturk C, Aydogan M, Tezer M, Aksu N, Bruno MB (2008) Posterior only pedicle screw instrumentation with intraoperative halo-femoral traction in the surgical treatment of severe scoliosis (>100 degrees). Spine 33:979–983.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Zhou C, Liu L, Song Y, Liu H, Li T, Gong Q, Zeng J, Kong Q (2011) Anterior and posterior vertebral column resection for severe and rigid idiopathic scoliosis. Eur Spine J 20:1728–1734.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Zhou C, Liu L, Song Y, Liu H, Li T, Gong Q, Zeng J, Kong Q (2013) Anterior release internal distraction and posterior spinal fusion for severe and rigid scoliosis. Spine 38:E1411-1417.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Crostelli M, Mazza O, Mariani M, Mascello D (2013) Treatment of severe scoliosis with posterior-only approach arthrodesis and all-pedicle screw instrumentation. Eur Spine J 22(Suppl 6):S808-814.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Yamin S, Li L, Xing W, Tianjun G, Yupeng Z (2008) Staged surgical treatment for severe and rigid scoliosis. J Orthop Surg Res 3:26

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Kwan MK, Zeyada HE, Chan CY (2015) Prediction of curve correction using alternate level pedicle screw placement in patients with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) Lenke 1 and 2 using supine side bending (SB) and fulcrum bending (FB) radiograph. Spine 40:1605–1612.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information



Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mun Keong Kwan.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Mihara, Y., Chung, W.H., Mohamad, S.M. et al. Predictive factors for correction rate in severe idiopathic scoliosis (Cobb angle ≥ 90°): an analysis of 128 patients. Eur Spine J (2021).

Download citation


  • Severe scoliosis
  • Correction rate
  • Predictive factor
  • Posterior spinal fusion
  • Side bending flexibility
  • Risser sign