| Literature DB >> 31170965 |
Young-Ah Choi1, Hyung-Ik Shin2, Hyun Iee Shin3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Patients with Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD) often develop scoliosis that progresses rapidly after loss of ambulation. Management of scoliosis is crucial because it affects both life expectancy and quality of life of patients with DMD. Spinal orthosis attempts to prevent or delay scoliosis using spinal support at three points of the controlling mechanism; the curve should be flattened by the pressure. Therefore, it is assumed that spine flexibility could be a significant influencing factor for the effectiveness of braces. Hence, we attempted to investigate the flexibility of scoliosis in non-ambulant patients with DMD.Entities:
Keywords: Duchenne muscular dystrophy; Flexibility; Neuromuscular scoliosis; Nonstructural scoliosis; Pelvic obliquity; Structural scoliosis
Year: 2019 PMID: 31170965 PMCID: PMC6555713 DOI: 10.1186/s12891-019-2661-6
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Musculoskelet Disord ISSN: 1471-2474 Impact factor: 2.362
Fig. 1Flowchart of subject enrollment
Demographic and clinical characteristics of participants
| Scoliosis development | No scoliosis | Total | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Number of boys | 31 | 19 | – | 50 | |
| Age (year) | 13.6 ± 2.5 | 12.4 ± 2.6 | 0.08 | 13.14 ± 2.6 | |
| Height (cm) | 149.4 ± 25.5 | 142.9 ± 34.3 | 0.66 | 146.9 ± 25.6 | |
| Body weight (kg) | 49.1 ± 16.5 | 45.9 ± 12.1 | 0.36 | 47.9 ± 14.9 | |
| Functional assessment | Brooke scale | 2.5 ± 1.7 | 2.0 ± 1.0 | 0.31 | 2.3 ± 1.5 |
| Vignos scale | 8.4 ± 0.6 | 8.3 ± 0.5 | 0.43 | 8.3 ± 0.5 | |
| Pulmonary function | FVC % of predicted (%) | 74.2 ± 12.5 | 84.5 ± 15.2 | 0.03 | 78.2 ± 14.7 |
Values are presented as mean ± standard deviation. Comparison between groups was by Mann-Whitney test. FVC; Functional vital capacity
Cobb angle of subjects
| Time 1 | Time 2 | Time 3 | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Number of boys | Cobb angle(°) | Flexibility (%) | Cobb angle(°) | Flexibility (%) | Cobb angle(°) | Flexibility (%) | |||
| sitting | supine | sitting | supine | sitting | supine | ||||
| 12a | 23.0 ± 5.6 | 10.8 ± 6.6 | 75.5 ± 5.0 | 30.9 ± 5.9 | 18.2 ± 6.6 | 57.1 ± 10.5 | 34.4 ± 4.4 | 22.2 ± 6.3 | 49.1 ± 10.0 |
| 25a | 11.1 ± 3.5 | 5.2 ± 3.3 | 60.7 ± 6.5 | 27.2 ± 3.2 | 13.7 ± 3.6 | 36.2 ± 9.2 | |||
| 31 | 22.4 ± 2.8 | 8.2 ± 3.0 | 86.2 ± 5.0 | ||||||
aSubjects are recruited from the 31 patients who have developed scoliosis during the follow up period
Values are presented as mean ± standard deviation
Time 1 represents the time when scoliosis was first detected after loss of walking ability
Time 2 represents the time 1 year after the detection of scoliosis
Time 3 represents the time 2 years after the detection of scoliosis
Fig. 2Values are presented as number of patients
Pelvic obliquity of subjects
| Time 1 | Time 2 | Time 3 | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Number of boys | Pelvic obliquity (°) | Flexibility (%) | Pelvic obliquity (°) | Flexibility (%) | Pelvic obliquity (°) | Flexibility (%) | |||
| sitting | supine | sitting | supine | sitting | supine | ||||
| 4 | 12.0 ± 8.0 | 5.3 ± 4.1 | 100.0 ± 40.0 | 11.4 ± 3.7 | 9.1 ± 3.5 | 27.3 ± 18.7 | 18.4 ± 7.3 | 12.6 ± 5.8 | 32.5 ± 12.7 |
| 10 | 9.1 ± 3.5 | 4.2 ± 4.9 | 61.5 ± 42.5 | 11.4 ± 1.1 | 6.9 ± 1.5 | 42.4 ± 10.7 | |||
| 18 | 8.6 ± 1.0 | 2.5 ± 0.8 | 71.9 ± 9.2 | ||||||
Values are presented as mean ± standard deviation
Time 1 represents the time when scoliosis was first detected after loss of walking ability
Time 2 represents the time 1 year after the detection of scoliosis
Time 3 represents the time 2 years after the detection of scoliosis