| Literature DB >> 23532719 |
Karen M Doherty1, Indran Davagnanam, Sean Molloy, Laura Silveira-Moriyama, Andrew J Lees.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although Pisa syndrome and scoliosis are sometimes used interchangeably to describe a laterally flexed postural deviation in Parkinson's disease (PD), the imaging findings of Pisa syndrome in PD have not been previously studied in detail.Entities:
Keywords: PARKINSON'S DISEASE
Mesh:
Year: 2013 PMID: 23532719 PMCID: PMC3841793 DOI: 10.1136/jnnp-2012-304700
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry ISSN: 0022-3050 Impact factor: 10.154
Figure 1Mobile and fixed scoliosis in Pisa syndrome. Patient A had scoliosis on standing radiograph (A-2) but not when he was scanned supine (A-3, A-4 and A-5). There was evidence of osteophytic overgrowth below the apex of the scoliosis in the lumbar spine and above on the opposite side in the thoracic spine (A-4 and A-5), this pattern suggests the degenerative changes were working to stabilise his spine but stopped short at the apex of his curve leaving him mobile but tilted at that level when standing (A-1 and A-2). The reduction in curve with position, presence of interdiscal gas (red arrows A-5) and gaps between the osteophytes are evidence that despite attempts the deformity is not fixed. Patient B had only minor improvement of his scoliosis on supine positioning (9% reducibility) (B-2 and B-3). Fusion of vertebral segments due to complete osteophytic bridging at the apex of the curve was clearly seen (B-4 and B-5) resulting in a fixed and possibly stable spinal deformity. Key: 1=patient photographs of Pisa syndrome while walking; 2=standing full spine anterior–posterior radiograph; 3=supine CT scan two-dimensional composite image; 4=supine CT scan three-dimensional surface rendered image; 5=supine CT scan two-dimensional fine cut in coronal plane.
Results and comparisons between those with mobile and those with ‘structural scoliosis’
| Patients with Pisa syndrome | Mobile scoliosis | Structural scoliosis | p Value** | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Patients | 15 | 3 | 12 | |
| Age (years) | 72.1 (5.7, 63.3–82.3) | 70.5 | 72.5 | 0.6 |
| Male: female | 12:3 | 2:1 | 10:2 | 0.5 |
| PD duration (years) | 15 (6.1, 7.3–27.3) | 15 | 15 | 0.99 |
| Deformity duration (years) | 5.8 (3, 0.6–13.2) | 5.2 | 5.9 | 0.7 |
| Daily levodopa LED (mg) | 647 (242, 300–1197) | 666 | 642 | 0.9 |
| Daily dopamine agonist LED (mg) | 250 (161, 0–480) | 275 | 244 | 0.8 |
| Daily PD medication LED (mg) | 1010 (330, 498–1697) | 1041 | 1003 | 0.9 |
| Lateral flexion angle (°) | 17.2 (5, 10–25) | 18 | 17 | 0.6 |
| Standing radiograph Cobb angle (°) | 35 (16.4, 8.6–67) | 20.8 | 38.8 | 0.08 |
| Supine CT Cobb angle (°) | 20.4 (12.4, 3.2–45) | 6 | 24.8 | <0.01* |
| Relative collapse scoliosis (%) | 44.4 (21.4, 7.8–87.6) | 68.7 | 37.7 | 0.02* |
| PDQ-39 total score (0–156) | 67 (26, 20–116) | 61 | 68 | 0.7 |
| WHO well-being index (0–25) | 13 (6, 3–25) | 15 | 13 | 0.6 |
| Fatigue severity scale (0–63) | 40 (15, 21–63) | 42 | 40 | 0.9 |
| Pain visual analogue scale (0–10) | 4 (2, 0–8) | 3.7 | 4.1 | 0.8 |
| MoCA (0–30) | 22.6 (4.6, 10–27) | 21 | 25 | 0.4 |
| FAB (0–18) | 12.5 (3.8, 6–18) | 11 | 13 | 0.4 |
| MDS-UPDRS II | 26 (5.6, 20–38) | 29 | 25 | 0.3 |
| MDS-UPDRS III | 43.5 (11.2, 27–61) | 50 | 41 | 0.2 |
*Significant difference between groups.
**Group means compared using Student's t test except for gender when Fisher's exact test was used.
No significant differences were found between those with and without a structural scoliosis in terms of PD duration, deformity duration, medication usage, quality of life, pain, cognition or Parkinson's severity (UPDRS II and III). Values given=mean (SD, range).
FAB, frontal assessment battery; LED, Levodopa equivalent dose; MDS-UPDRS, Movement Disorder Society revised Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale; MoCA, Montreal Cognitive Assessment; PD, Parkinson's disease; PDQ, Parkinson's Disease Questionnaire.