How back pain intensity relates to clinical and psychosocial factors in patients with idiopathic scoliosis.

OBJECTIVE: A pain intensity of 3 can reliably distinguish idiopathic scoliosis (IS) patients with acceptable pain or not. This research aims to analyze psychosocial, family and quality of life differences in patients according to their pain status. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Patients with IS, without previous surgery, Cobb ≥ 30° and age (12-40) were included in the study. They completed the questionnaires Numerical Rate Scale (NRS), Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia (TSK)-11, SRS22r, Hospital Anxiety-Depression Scale (HADS), COMI item 7 (work/school absenteeism) and family APGAR. Comorbidities and family health history were collected. Analysis of covariance was performed to compare means between the PAIN (NRS > 3), (NRS < = 3) groups controlling for the effect of age and the magnitude of the curve. RESULTS: In total, 272 patients were included. 37.1% belonged to the PAIN group (PG). The PG showed a significantly higher Cobb grade and age than the NO-PAIN group. After controlling for these variables, the PG had worse pain, mental health and SRS22-subtotal values. However, they did not differ in function or self-image. PG showed higher levels of kinesiophobia, anxiety, depression, absenteeism from work/school and impact on social/family environment. PG patients reported a higher prevalence of comorbidities and family history of nonspecific spinal pain. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with IS and unacceptable pain constitute a group with a different incidence of psychological, social, family and comorbidities factors than those with acceptable pain. In contrast, the severity of IS was not substantially different between the groups. This profile is similar to that observed in patients with nonspecific spinal pain.

The Relationship of Kinesiophobia with Pain and Quality of Life in Idiopathic Scoliosis.

STUDY DESIGN: Prospective, multi-centric, cross-sectional study. OBJECTIVE: To analyze the construct validity of the Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia (TSK) in a cohort of patients with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS). SUMMARY OF THE BACKGROUND DATA: Back pain is not uncommon in AIS. The fear of movement (kinesiophobia) in response to pain is related to back pain. TSK psychometric properties in AIS patients have not been properly analyzed. METHODS: Patients with AIS and no prior spine surgery were prospectively included. They fulfilled the Spanish version of the TSK-11 questionnaire, a pain intensity numerical rating scale (NRS), refined SRS-22 (SRS-22r), the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), and item 7 of the Core Outcome Measurement Index (COMI). The sample was split into two groups for the statistical analysis: adolescents and young adults. Cronbach alpha was used to assess internal consistency. Discriminant and concurrent validity were obtained by computing Pearson correlation coefficients between the TSK score and several criterion measures. RESULTS: A total of 275 patients were included-198 adolescents (mean age of 14.6 yrs) and 77 young adults (mean age of 26.9 yrs). The Cobb of largest curve means were 44.9° and 48.9°, respectively. In the adolescent group, the TSK mean (±SD) was 21.5 (±5.93), with a floor effect of 2.5%. In the adult group, the TSK mean was 24.2 (±6.63), with a floor effect of 3.9%. The ceiling effect was 0% in both groups. Cronbach alphas for the adolescent and adult groups were 0.76 and 0.79, respectively. No correlation was found in any group between the TSK score and the curve magnitude or pattern (Lenke classification). The TSK was significantly correlated with HAD depression and SRS-22r in both groups. However, these correlations were weaker in adolescents. In adults, the TSK also significantly correlates with NRS and work/school absenteeism. CONCLUSION: The Spanish version of TSK-11 is a reliable and valid instrument to analyze kinesiophobia in AIS. However, the weak correlation between kinesiophobia and pain intensity, disability, and emotional condition in adolescents requires further study.Level of Evidence: 4.

Validity of a one-item drawing-based instrument to assess trunk deformity perception in kyphotic deformities.

INTRODUCTION: Body image and trunk appearance perception are two crucial attributes in determining the quality of life of individuals with spinal deformities. The Trunk Appearance Perception Scale (TAPS) is a drawing-based instrument used to evaluate this feature. The TAPS does not include a sagittal view of the trunk so it is never been used to assess trunk deformity perception in hyperkyphotic patients. This study aims to analyze the effect of introducing a new drawing on the TAPS scale representing the trunk view in the sagittal plane. PATIENTS: 170 non-surgical patients were included (mean age 16.9 years and 77.4% women) distributed in three groups. CONTROL group (no deformity): 22 cases; KYPHOSIS group (sagittal deformity): 49 cases and SCOLIOSIS group (coronal deformity): 99 cases (mean Cobb 42.4º). METHOD: Cross-sectional study. A new drawing (TAPS4) was designed to represent the deformity in the sagittal plane with five response options. Clinical (SRS-22 and TAPS 4-items) and radiological (kyphosis T4-T12) data were collected in all patients. The statistical analysis consisted in determining for each group the internal consistency of the 3-items TAPS vs 4-items TAPS, as well as the discriminant validity (correlation with kyphosis magnitude) and convergent validity (correlation with the SRS-22 image subscale). In addition, test-retest reliability of new item 4 was determined in a subgroup of 30 kyphotic patients. During control visit, the patients received a complete physical examination and a full-spine AP and lateral X-ray in standing position using a low-radiation technique and fulfilled instruments TAPS 4 items and SRS-22r. RESULTS: The three groups were found to have statistically significant differences in the magnitude of kyphosis, quality of life, body image perception, the 3-items TAPS, 4-items TAPS and new item 4 score. The addition of the item 4 to TAPS 3 items did not cause a significant change in the internal consistency of the scales (Cronbach's alpha) (TAPS 3-items 0.8 vs. TAPS 4-items 0.8). Kyphosis magnitude was not correlated with the 3-items TAPS and 4-items TAPS scores; however, in the KYPHOSIS group, a significant negative correlation was observed between kyphosis and item 4 (Rho = - 0.4, p = 0.0001). A significant correlation was found in all groups between TAPS 3-items and TAPS 4-items and SRS-22 image domain; the correlation between item 4 and SRS-22 body image domain was 0.3 in the Scoliosis group and 0.7 in the Kyphosis group. CONCLUSIONS: The 4-items TAPS scale does not provide advantages in the assessment of trunk deformity over the 3-items scale. However, in patients with kyphosis, the item 4 (Kypho-TAPS) alone is a valid and reliable instrument to monitor the perception of the trunk deformity.

Neurocognitive function in bipolar disorder: a comparison between bipolar I and II disorder and matched controls.

BACKGROUND: Cognitive deficits have been documented in patients with bipolar disorder. Further, it has been suggested that the degree and type of cognitive impairment differ between bipolar I and bipolar II disorder, but data is conflicting and remains inconclusive. This study aimed to clarify the suggested differences in cognitive impairment between patients with bipolar I and II disorder in a relatively large, clinically stable sample while controlling for potential confounders. METHODS: 67 patients with bipolar I disorder, 43 with bipolar II disorder, and 86 randomly selected population-based healthy controls were compared. A number of neuropsychological tests were administered, assessing verbal and visual memory and executive functions. Patients were in a stable phase during testing. RESULTS: Patients with bipolar type I and type II were cognitively impaired compared to healthy controls, but there were no statistically significant differences between the two subtypes. The strongest predictor of cognitive impairment within the patient group was current antipsychotic treatment. CONCLUSIONS: The present study suggests that the type and degree of cognitive dysfunction is similar in bipolar I and II patients. Notably, treatment with antipsychotics - but not a history of psychosis - was associated with more severe cognitive impairment. Given that patients with bipolar I disorder are more likely to be on antipsychotic drugs, this might explain why some previous studies have found that patients with type I bipolar disorder are more cognitively impaired than those with type II.