STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. OBJECTIVES: The present review aimed to summarize the evidence regarding differences in proprioception between children with and without adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS). METHODS: Seven electronic databases were searched from their inception to April 10, 2021. Articles were included if they involved: (1) AIS patients aged between 10 and 18 years, (2) measurements of proprioceptive abilities, and (3) comparisons with non-AIS controls. Animal studies, case reports, commentaries, conference proceedings, research protocols, and reviews were excluded. Two reviewers independently conducted literature screening, data extraction, risks of bias assessments, and quality of evidence evaluations. Relevant information was pooled for meta-analyses. RESULTS: From 432 identified citations, 11 case-control studies comprising 1121 participants were included. The meta-analyses showed that AIS participants displayed proprioceptive deficits as compared to non-AIS controls. Moderate evidence supported that AIS participants showed significantly larger repositioning errors than healthy controls (pooled mean difference = 1.27 degrees, P < .01). Low evidence substantiated that AIS participants had significantly greater motion detection threshold (pooled mean difference = 1.60 degrees, P < .01) and abnormal somatosensory evoked potentials (pooled mean difference = .36 milliseconds, P = .01) than non-AIS counterparts. CONCLUSIONS: Consistent findings revealed that proprioceptive deficits occurred in AIS patients. Further investigations on the causal relationship between AIS and proprioception, and the identification of the subgroup of AIS patients with proprioceptive deficit are needed.
STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. OBJECTIVES: The present review aimed to summarize the evidence regarding differences in proprioception between children with and without adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS). METHODS: Seven electronic databases were searched from their inception to April 10, 2021. Articles were included if they involved: (1) AIS patients aged between 10 and 18 years, (2) measurements of proprioceptive abilities, and (3) comparisons with non-AIS controls. Animal studies, case reports, commentaries, conference proceedings, research protocols, and reviews were excluded. Two reviewers independently conducted literature screening, data extraction, risks of bias assessments, and quality of evidence evaluations. Relevant information was pooled for meta-analyses. RESULTS: From 432 identified citations, 11 case-control studies comprising 1121 participants were included. The meta-analyses showed that AIS participants displayed proprioceptive deficits as compared to non-AIS controls. Moderate evidence supported that AIS participants showed significantly larger repositioning errors than healthy controls (pooled mean difference = 1.27 degrees, P < .01). Low evidence substantiated that AIS participants had significantly greater motion detection threshold (pooled mean difference = 1.60 degrees, P < .01) and abnormal somatosensory evoked potentials (pooled mean difference = .36 milliseconds, P = .01) than non-AIS counterparts. CONCLUSIONS: Consistent findings revealed that proprioceptive deficits occurred in AIS patients. Further investigations on the causal relationship between AIS and proprioception, and the identification of the subgroup of AIS patients with proprioceptive deficit are needed.