Talk:Scoliosis

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Medicine (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Chiropractic (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Chiropractic, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Chiropractic on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Cause?[edit]

I'm not aiming this at anyone in particular but the whole profession - of course there's likely few exceptions to the rule and those exceptional people are likely also those who not only read peer reviewed study but also seek out, assess and invent new solutions that could be as simple as changing something in your environment that you interact with daily. But how can the doctor even recommend such change or learn that perhaps not every kind of item a consumer can buy from the store is good for them in the long run if they use it extensively. Example: I spend 10+ hours a day on a computer. The ergonomics are going to matter. I spend 8+ hours sleeping. Same there. I know for a fact that first subtle things develop and they'll slowly get worse and worse and if I change something, the condition I had developed could take year or more to heal. *good luck* finding a doctor to quickly diagnose these sort of issues. They aren't even trying because in capitalism it's cheaper to give a quick "try this" fix in 15 minutes than to go to live with the client enough that you can gather statistical evidence of what they are doing and write it to a database and correlate with other such reports globally (along with genetic analysis, the could be predisposition involved in many things too). I'm boldly claiming most of the big ailments western people are daily facing can only be solved through this kind of method and completely forgetting the 19th century "take this pill" approach. A lot of bad things come through work where you do some particular thing efficiently - working is like becoming an athlete, you need people who have statistically significant evidence that their techniques make it possible to do that work efficiently without causing injury in long run. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.181.229.188 (talk) 13:39, 10 April 2015 (UTC)



The Naition's Opinion[edit]

Scoliosis, a disease of the spine, can be described in any ways; yet the most common one is 'sad.' Being a Scoliosis doctor, i reccomend no brace treatment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.88.45.211 (talk) 01:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Possible vandalism?[edit]

In the Surgery section someone has said that "another common way to cure scoliosis and is almost mandatory is to have your back amputated". Obviously this is nonsense - and may even cause alarm to some - so could someone kindly update the article to remove that section? I am a wiki newcomer so am not sure how to do it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by DrHercules (talkcontribs) 09:22, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

There[edit]

There are a couple of requests for sitation that can be taken care of with this link. I am not experienced enough in wiki editing to know if I was doing it right, so I'll leave it here in case someone else wants to take care of it. http://www.iscoliosis.com/causes.html TecBrat 14:35, 7 August 2007 (UTC)


what is scoliosis?

scoliosis is a lateral (side to side) curvature of the spine, it generally curves in either a C shape (one curve) and can be said to be C-left or right depending on which way it curves, or it can be in an S shape where there are two curves.


Aren't there other kinds of curves??? There must be the kind that would make a person hunchback-ish and I've heard that they could be cork screw-like too. Animalprincess123 (talk) 03:01, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Harrington Rod[edit]

I thought many thousands of people had Harrington Rods and that most surgery now involved improved rods with better designs (which are less liable to breaking) combined with fusion? I have my doubts about the validity of the final couple of paragraphs. I could be wrong.


I had scoliosis surgery earlier this year. I didn't get a Harrington rod, but I got 2 itty bitty rods and some screws put in where the disks were removed. So I think Harrington Rods are still used, but they aren't the only thing "rod-ish", I guess you could say. Unless I'm misunderstanding you, it sounded like you thought the only thing was Harrington Rods and I just know that that's not true. I may be misunderstanding you though. Animalprincess123 (talk) 02:59, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Management[edit]

The vast majority of scoliotic cases identified are adressed by traditional doctors, and traditional doctors predominantly observe if under 20 degrees, brace until 45, and have surgery at 45. Chiropractic procedures are highly frowned upon by traditional medicine.

I think that's a little too cut and dry...no surgeon will cut someone up just because they went over 45. Unless the guy is knife-happy in which case he should be de-licensed lol. 45' would be the point where surgery would be considered, not performed. But most surgeons won't unless severe pain is present or organs are being compromised or the curve is rapidly progressing and there's greater chance of much severe case...

As far as chiropractic procedures go, who cares if it's frowned upon by traditional medicine? That would be just someone's opinion. You'll find that any medical procedures are frowned upon by someone. There's no doubt about that for symptomatic relief, chiropractic is one of the, if not the best modality barring severe cases where surgeries are warranted. As for correctional type of therapy, the main complaint is lack of long term studies. Curve corrections are observed often enough. There's just no controlled study on the efficacy long term wise. That's being put on by several institutes as I am aware of. --Scolidoc 23:32, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


The "management" section contains a list organizing the order of events in which scoliotic cases are normally adressed. The list implies uniformity in treatment. This is not the case. Treatment varies tremendously based on doctor and degree of curve so much that any order of treatment priorities is meaningless. Thanatosimii 01:49, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I believe it depends on where you live. My doctor who did treat people with scoliosis in the States, found they did surgery much earlier. However, my operation did not occur until my degrees were around 70-80, simply because I did not experience alot of pain. It all depends on where you live, I suppose. Disinclination 23:01, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Disinclination...it doens't just depend on where you are...it depends on each individual surgeon's opinion. There's really no clear cut guideline. Everything is on case by case basis.. for example..if someone is at 45 and show aggressive trend of progression, most surgeons will want to do surgery. But if someone is already at 50 or 60 but likely stable without much symptoms, surgeons in right mind wouldn't touch it..there are those who'd like to perform surgery on every warm body that walks into their door...but let's not let them be the standard...I think the problem with this article is that there aren't any experts here. Everyone's either a patient with narrow view biased by their own cases or some practitioners out to promote their own methods...perhaps deletion of article would do better as this article is totally unbalanced. I'm afraid of patients getting the wrong idea about the treatment process and doubting their own doctors because of this article... at least put some type of disclaimer...

Spinecor[edit]

http://www.scoliosisspecialists.com SPINECOR: A non-rigid brace for the treatment of Idiopathic Scoliosis: Initial Post-Treatment Results. Eurospine 2003 12: 141-1 Christine Coillard, M.D., Michel A Leroux, Ph.D., Karl F, Zabjek, MSc., Charles Hilaire Rivard, M.D.

I've added spinecor brace information on the brace section. Above is a link to peer reviewed study on the brace. Below is another published study on it. The brace is used frequently enough with enough data that it deserves inclusion.

Survival analysis of a group of 365 idiopathic scoliosis patients treated with the Dynamic SpineCor Brace Résonances Eurospéenes Du Rachis. 14(43):p. 1782-1786. French. Vachon V, Coillard C, Zabjek KF, Rhalmi S, Rivard CH

This reads like advertising. Such an extensive discussion of "benefits" is not provided for other treatments. --Zoombody (talk) 21:38, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Definition of Scoliosis[edit]

Definition of scoliosis should be changed. Lateral side to side curvature is an inaccurate way to describe the condition. Spines curve in coupled movements and spines are often deformed in cork-screw type of manner which causes changes in lordotic and kyphotic curves of involved regions. It is a 3-d deformation and current definition takes into account only 2-d aspect of the condition. --Scolidoc 23:33, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


~


The 'curve' has to be a certain percentage to be classified as Scoliosis. Under that certain percentage it is not classified as the condition. Unsure what it is called below the percentage.


~ NantucketNoon (talk) 09:51, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I think they call it scoliosis no matter what, or they just don't call it anything, because it means nothing. A slight curve, maybe? I don't know for sure, but there are some ideas. Animalprincess123 (talk) 02:52, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

More on Definition of Scoliosis[edit]

I think it is inaccurate to say that scoliosis is incurable. I certainly wouldn't go out and claim that there are cures. But there has been numerous cases where new types of bracing has been able to achieve correction where the new curves've been kept 5 years after the surgery.

I'd like to direct you guys to http://www.istreamplanet.com/srs/media/12126.asx it's a video of Dr. Rivard's presentation on 5 year survival analysis of St. Justine's brace patient at Scoliosis Research Society's 40th annual meeting.

We certainly don't have cure for all types of scoliosis. But at least, some of the milder conditions were shown to be reversible with certain types of approach. --Scolidoc 23:33, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Palates has been known to help.

Well, when you have a cure, it usually means that the symptoms will go away. If someone was to take the rods and screws out of my spine, for god only knows what reason, my spine would regress. So would someone wearing a back brace, like I did. I don't understand how palates would help slow down the progression, either. I think it is incurable. Disinclination 22:44, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

There are many types of scoliosis..let's not assume what you have is the only kind. I think the entry should include that we are specifically talking about idiopathic scoliosis as posturer or antalgic scoliosis can certainly be cured easily. As for idiopathic scoliosis, although there aren't any definite cure for all idiopathic scoliosis, there has been enough anecdotal evidence to suggest that some idiopathic scoliosis can be reversed or in other words cured. Just in idiopathic scoliosis, there are different categories and classifications. Depending on the severity and stage of development during intervention, with all the conditions meeting just right, some types of idiopathic scoliosis can be reversed... as for the abover person who seems to think cure only exists if he can take the rods out of his body, let's think outside of your body...you represent 1 person who has already had surgical intervention...and you are talking about reversing the surgery...not scoliosis...

I honestly think it can be an influence. I can't say my doctor is the all mighty supreme authority on all things dealing with scoliosis, but he's been a doctor for a very long time, and has probably gotten around to meeting other doctors. Thats what a responsible doctor would do, to seek the opinion of others. I am not in favour of deleting the article, simply because there is alot of good information on this page. Oh, and please sign your comments using four ~'s. Disinclination 21:29, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

__________ Scoliosis is most definitely curable, everything from surgery to the back brace can help improve if not cure you. and I agree, palates really does help. I have scoliosis, and it's done wonders in strengthening my back. Fashionguru48 (talk) 20:15, 31 March 2008 (UTC)fashionguru48

I would say that adolescent idiopathic scoliosis is not curable (the bones will always be misshapen regardless of the treatment) but certainly is manageable. A person with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis will always have scoliosis, regardless of type of treatment because the bones themselves (vertebrae, ribs) are premanently misshapen since they've actually formed and grown that way due to the physics of the curvature. Personally, I'm certainly better off since I've had my bracing and then 2 surgeries (one to put the CD rods in and, 5 years later, a 4 hour surgery to completely remove all the hardware due to muscular irritation and a bursa from rubbing on the rods) but I'm still fused and still have scoliosis and always will. Fusion doesn't regress either (it's been 17 years since rod removal), I just have a solid spine where the rods were.Gumby2 (talk) 07:24, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Citing sources for this article[edit]

There is no reference section indicating what references were used in this article. I haven't yet check to see if the external links were the references used, but if they are - it should be noted in a reference section. -- backburner001 20:21, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I've added one source and the appropriate reference and footnote sections to start things off. But I'd like to see more references for this article. Perhaps the initial contributors can add their previous references to the list? -- backburner001 20:34, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
what sources are considered appropriate reference and where do you add the footnotes? I'm willing to hunt down some references. I have tons of them lol --Scolidoc 23:15, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference? As of the time this is being written, this article has eight citations needed. The first missing citation that was made note of was in the definition of scoliosis. This was in the very beginning of the article, and this section not only lacks citations but could also use a bit more information. A firm explanation in the definition of scoliosis would allow for a better understanding and grasp the interest of readers in a better manner. Check a few citations. Do the links work? Is there any close paraphrasing or plagiarism in the article? Many of the links in the references did work, but multiple links from specifically the "Scoliosis Research Society" resulted in a "404" error or a "not found error" when clicked on.Geetram Hitnarine (talk) 23:12, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Regarding Alexander Technique...[edit]

any reason why this technic was introduced on the first paragraph? Any peer reviewed journals stating this technique is effective? I ask because there are other forms of more popular techniques which weren't mentioned. I'm wondering if this paragraph was written by alexander technique provider lol.. I'm not bagging on the technique..rather..i'd love to get more information myself.. the article just seems unbalanced. --Scolidoc 21:10, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I've re-read the article and am concerned... it claims Alexander Technique can effect the natural course of the disease... There's not a single reference to this anywhere to be found. From what I understand, only modality to effect the natural course of scoliosis is surgery and perhaps braces in some cases. Can anyone cite 1 reference?

--Scolidoc 04:07, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

External links[edit]

I think that this link (Scoliosis Correction - dedicated to non-surgical, non-bracing correction of scoliosis in children & adults) is inappropriate for a lot of reasons. I think it is only a sort of scary advertising, and that could damage people who seek for informations about scoliosis. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.0.239.234 (talk) 18:11, 21 March 2007 (UTC).


OK...why is scoliosissystems.com keep appearing on this page? It's not an informational page or official spinecor web site. I have replaced spinecor link to official site. I've also erased Scoliosissystems.com and scoliosis care foundation web site links because it's owned by same guy and he's using this page to promote his business. That web site should be banned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.103.221.195 (talk) 06:52, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


Be aware of Scoliosissystems. com .. they are not good at what they do and they have almost no experience in scoliosis to began with.. the owner has many different websites including a supposed non for profit that he uses to market his business.. i have report the site to wikipedia to be banned forever!! its something to put your links all over the place, but its another thing to have a bad reputation and lack of knowledge on scoliosis treatment!!.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.90.14.56 (talk) 08:44, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

No cause?[edit]

Under the "Cause" section, it says "There is no cause of scoliosis." Surely there's something wrong with that statement; if there's nothing to cause it, it wouldn't happen. 69.226.248.242 (talk) 16:59, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Scoliosis is genetic. There is most certainly a cause, your genes.

Fashionguru48 (talk) 20:09, 31 March 2008 (UTC)Fashionguru48

It all depends on what type you have, idiopathic means that there is no known reason or cause. There are many causes e.g: Genes or even muscle abnormalitys.130.123.128.114 (talk) 23:18, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I have idiopathic scoliosis and it's not at all about genes, it's about lack of physical fitness at a very young age. You know those round car seats people use to carry their kids? Ever wonder why babies cry and cough a lot in those? It's not good for them. It prevents movement, curves the spine and rib cage. An other thing that causes idiopathic scoliosis is an accident. When I was 2 years old, I jumped down the stairs to try and show up my brother (he was sliding down the stairs with a mattress), and I hit the wall with my right shoulder which broke my collar bone. My back doctors told me it's because of those 2 things that I have scoliosis: being in a baby seat and spinal compression from jumping down the stairs when I was 2. They told me that I need to do at least 12 hours of calisthenics per week to live past 40. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.238.63.183 (talk) 14:24, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Terribly Written Last Section[edit]

Read the "Alternatives" section. It sounds like it was written by a well-intentioned third grader. This could really use a rewrite. 76.108.31.31 (talk) 05:42, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Hijacked[edit]

Looks like this subject has been hijacked by people of Scoliosis SOS who have link down at the external link section. They have changed information of the management section to their purpose and are stalking this site for any changes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spyderlad (talkcontribs) 00:00, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


I've deleted Rigo article. It was an advertising attempt from the brace manufacturers themselves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.104.125.79 (talk) 19:29, 9 February 2008 (UTC)


Can someone stop scoliosis sos from advertising on this site??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.104.125.79 (talk) 19:32, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Please could scoliosis sos be prevented from advertising, they are being really blatant and are making false claims that their manager Erika Maude introduced Schroth therapy to the English-speaking world despite the fact that the US clinic has been open far longer than hers and individual practitioners have been practicing in the UK and US for years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.80.99.13 (talk) 15:06, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Whowever's writing the Schroth Method section, you need to stop advertising on this article. Only put in what's relevant. You do not need to go through the whole history of the technique. And do not advertise particular clinic. It is obvious who's writing the piece... If you intend to write an article on Schroth, create one for schroth then link it from this article rather than making schroth into the only treatment modality for scoliosis... Spyderlad (talk) 22:46, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Heads up, erikamaude.com is Scoliosis SOS. How insiduous can they get? --Nathanael Bar-Aur L. (talk) 20:32, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I was checking the section on the Schroth method. The first citation used to support its "proven effective" is:
Weiss, HR (1992). "Influence of an in-patient exercise program on scoliotic curve". Italian journal of orthopaedics and traumatology 18 (3): 395–406. PMID 1308886.
The abstract says:
The average angle of curvature as measured by the Cobb technique was 43.06 degrees (standard deviation = 22.87) before treatment and 38.96 degrees (SD = 23.00) after treatment.
That's not statistically significant. 43 degrees +/- 23 is not significantly different from 39 degrees +/- 23.
I think this whole section is a candidate for deletion, or else condensation to a comment that it has not been demonstrated effective, if we can find a WP:RS to say so. --Nbauman (talk) 23:45, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
This is a discussion group and not a WP:RS, but this person reports having contacted Quackwatch and gotten the following response:
http://www.scoliosis.org/forum/showthread.php?8179-Quackwatch-and-Schroth
"I have done several PubMed and OVID searches on Schroth and Scoliosis. All I can find is a handful of abstracts (around 30). None are of controlled studies. Several studies are prospective looks at the Schroth method, but none have large numbers of patients, none have long term follow up and none have controls. And only abstracts can be found- no actual articles. From the best I can tell, most of the "journals" in which these articles appear are not peer reviewed. A majority of the articles are written by HR Weiss, the medical director of a Schroth clinic. Many of his articles attack surgery for scoliosis with untrue "facts." He does not appear to be an unbiased researcher. Most important- there are no prospective, controlled studies which would indicate there is any basis for the use of the Schroth method."
If there are no controlled studies after all these years, and no publications in peer-reviewed journals, then it doesn't meet WP:MEDMOS and should be deleted or reduced to a paragraph. --Nbauman (talk) 00:24, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Agree with that. Why is this Schroth method stuff still in the article? Lesion 15:51, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Removed the section. I have no knowledge of this topic, but from the above thread there seems to have been long running POV pushing issues here. I note that there are still many articles by this medical director of a Schroth clinic (Weiss) dotted throughout the article. All my senses are telling me there are many problems with the whole article and it's going to take much effort to bring back to a neutral POV. Lesion 16:01, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Vertebral Stapling[edit]

Moved here for discussion:

Vertebral Stapling

Vertebral Body Stapling (VBS) is a "minimally invasive" alternative to bracing. Once the staples are inserted the staple itself applies pressure to the convex (outer) side of the curve therefore reducing the rate in which it grows allowing the other side to “catch up”. Therefore there is a very real possibility that correction can take place not only the day of surgery but over time. Conventional bracing offers no likelihood of correction whatsoever; conventional bracing only hopes to maintain the curve during growth. There are no guarantees with either conventional bracing or VBS that curves will not continue to progress.

The basic criteria for VBS are as follows:

1. The child must still have years of growth remaining (normally girls up to age 14 and boys up to age 16).

2. Curve less than 45°

3. Spine flexibility

The above list does not automatically qualify or disqualify anyone, these are general criteria.

During the operation, the patient lies on his side, and one of the lungs is temporarily deflated to allow the surgeons room to insert the staples. The surgeon can straighten out the spine when the patient is relaxed under anesthesia and with each staple clamp together two vertebrae on the side the bones are bowing out, which should correct the curve and keep it from getting worse. The prongs of the staple are kept straight in a basin of cold water as the patient is prepared for surgery. When the inch-wide staples are clamped onto the bone, the body's temperature will cause them to curve into a C.

The staples are made of Nitanol, known as a "shape-memory metal" for its ability to change shape according to temperature.Use of staples in orthopedic surgery isn't new, but previous attempts to use them to treat scoliosis failed because the prongs broke off. Memory metal, an alloy of nickel and titanium developed by the aviation industry, is better at accommodating the motion of the spine.

The surgery was developed by Dr. Randall Betz at the Philadelphia Shriners Hospital and is now also performed at Boston Children's Hospital.

8. New Surgical Treatments for Scoliosis: Vertebral Body Stapling and Wedge Osteotomies, Randall R. Betz http://www.spineuniverse.com/displayarticle.php/article1895.html

9. Betz RR, D'Andrea LP, Mulcahey MJ, et al. Vertebral body stapling procedure for the treatment of scoliosis in the growing child. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2005; (434):55-60.

10. Betz RR, Kim J, D'Andrea LP, et al. An innovative technique of vertebral body stapling for the treatment of patients with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: a feasibility, safety, and utility study. Spine. 2003; 15; 28(20):S255-S265.

(End of moved material) I think we can probably find some useful information in this to add to the article. This version is too long, too descriptive, too promotional in general, and promotional of Dr. Randall Betz.

See WP:COI, WP:SPAM, WP:NPOV, and WP:SOAP. --Ronz (talk) 16:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Would it be appropriate to include a seperate page explaining vertebral stapling, linked to the scoliosis page? I am not clear on why this version is too long (no longer than explanation of spinal fusion) Also, Randall Betz pioneered this surgery (as Paul Harrington developed the harrington rod surgery which is also mentioned in this article.) I do not see this as promotional - Randall Betz, MD is the Chief of Staff at Shriners Philly - non-profit hospital. But I will agree to remove/revise any of the above info to get some of it included. Please advise. This is an important "new" development in the treatment of scoliosis - and is now being moved out of the experimental phase and being implemented at more hospitals nationwide: Children's Hospital of Los Angeles, The University of Mississippi Medical Center, St. Louis Children's Hospital, Riley Hospital for Children, Boston Children's Hospital, Carawinslow (talk) 12:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Language used[edit]

Personally, I find the language used in the article really frustrating. Wikipedia, in may opinion, has always been good at explaining things and not leaving the reader confused. This articles sounds like it's written by a gad student ad a medical college in some parts, and like a third grade research paper in others. someone should definethe big words, and even out the language used so it's consistent.Fashionguru48 (talk) 20:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Moss-Miami Technique[edit]

Perhaps someone with a knowledge of this method could add to the article?... This method was performed on me when I was 16 in 1998. I never hear it mentioned when reading about Scoliosis treatment and would like too see a description of the technique. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.194.84.105 (talk) 00:27, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Removed Possible Vandalism[edit]

In the list of people who had scoliosis, there was a mention of Jeff Dunham's character "Achmed the Dead Terrorist", and even included a joke about poliosis (scoliosis + polio in this situation). If this is not vandalism, I apologize, I was just "being bold".

Repeated symptoms[edit]

Symptoms section repeats itself. Following symptoms are the same essentially (shoulder level/height):

  • Uneven hip, rib cage, and shoulder levels
  • Different heights of the shoulders

I'll leave this to someone else to edit; enough changes being made (and subsequently reversed) here! :)

A person can have uneven shoulder heights due to Sprengel's deformity and the correlation between Sprengel's deformity and Scoliosis is fairly high so it's not entirely wrong to distinguish between different shoulder heights caused entirely by Scoliosis and different shoulder heights caused by closely related deformities. That said, since this is about Scoliosis and not Sprengel's deformity we should stick to the symptons that are directly caused by Scoliosis so I agree with the suggested change. EconomicsGuy (talk) 09:36, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Military Service[edit]

The information on Military Service is not correct. It is not that cut and dried. I am a veteran with a spinal fusion. This is a very poorly written article.

Degrees of Scoliosis

If your degree of scoliosis is 0 to 10 degrees, you can leave it. If it is 20 to 30 degrees, you might have to wear a body brace. And lastly, if it is 40 to 50 degrees, surgery might be required. 0 to 10 degrees is most common in scoliosis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.116.43.90 (talk) 23:38, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Night Braces[edit]

Why is there no information about night braces on this page? I am not sure that they are widely known, but I was treated with one for a bit less than a year seven years ago. I was only 14 years old at the time and I don't remember very much about it, or I would have edited the article myself. What I do remember is that it was able to completely stop the progression of my scoliosis without ever once having to wear a brace outside of bed, and I want to make sure that anyone who is able to use one is aware of them. It was made from some type of plastic, and had a inward "bulge" on one side of the lower back which pushed on the lumbar muscles next to the spine, which I assume provided the corrective action. It also pressed on the side of the rib cage under the armpit. It started under the armpits, higher on one side than the other, and extended past the hip bone one one side only.

At first I thought it may have been a Charleston Bending Brace, but I don't recall it bending me over sideways, and the pictures I have seen of this brace don't seem to have the lower back impression. Also, an X-ray of my spine with the brace on showed the spinal column perfectly straight, not bent to the side. If anyone knows any more information about this type of brace, I would appreciate any help on amending the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.163.246.178 (talk) 09:11, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Problem with thumbnail image of 'Wiki pre-op.jpg'[edit]

The thumbnail file '230px-Wiki pre-op.jpg' on the main article page is inconsistent with the caption and inconsistent with the linked file. The caption and linked file state that the view of the x-ray is such that the heart is on the left (viewing patient from behind, as would a spine surgeon) whereas the thumbnail file shows the heart on the right (standard for non-spine xrays). I would edit this but I'm not sure how to access the thumbnail file. 162.119.68.249 (talk) 20:43, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Symptoms lacking[edit]

In the symptoms section there's no mention at all of pain or other, possibly common, but "only" subjectively experienced symptoms. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Numus (talkcontribs) 07:29, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Chiropractic[edit]

Could this section be removed until citations are provided? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theresavalek (talkcontribs)


Done! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.4.107.253 (talk) 02:53, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Complications section is not impartial[edit]

There are clearly opinions in the scoliosis surgery complications section. As someone who has undergone spinal fusion, I can vouch for the fact that it is not purely a cosmetic procedure as it has cured me of spinal pain and I had the operation 6 years ago. I believe this should be revised to list the complications only e.g. nerve damage etc. but to not subtly include the author's opinion of the surgary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.173.33.254 (talk) 13:44, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, this claim seems to be somewhat dubious. There are presently two references attached to it; I will investigate further an try to determine whether this is the isolated opinion of a few authors that should be reported as such. Obvious facts seem to call the claim into question for the purposes of Wikipedia. For one, the procedure is typically covered by insurance, whereas insurers usually will not cover cosmetic procedures. More investigation (and possible more references) are necessary before including such a strong and controversial claim as a statement of fact and not of opinion Locke9k (talk) 16:23, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

May cause blindness of the hair colour and is also a mental illness not knowing what they are doing or why —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.46.234.158 (talk) 02:52, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Epidemiology Section VERY POOR- Remove?[edit]

"A scoliosis spinal columns curve of 10° or less affects 1.5% to 3% of individuals. The prevalence of curves less than 20° is about equal in males and females. It is most common during late childhood, in particular, in girls."


This clearly contradicts itself, saying its equal in both sexes, but more prevalent in girls?? Confusing... Also the figures go from explaining overall prevalence of 10° to the sex comparison of 20° with no figure. It doesnt follow clearly from one to the other and is an illogical, inconsistent way of expressing the epidemiology.

I suggest a brisk clean up and expansion or outright removal....Wheezybabs (talk) 10:47, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Under "Cause" it says:

"Another cause of scoliosis, is genetic, where the father of the child born with severe scoliosis, had the gas ether is in blood when the child was conceived. This occured whenthe father was an anaesthetist using ether every day in several hospitals. Nowadays, ether is not used for operations."

There are typos and some of the paragraph doesn't make sense and there is no citation. Can someone edit this? Much appreciated. Thanks!

--Kambrielle (talk) 04:33, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

MAGEC example[edit]

Re: [1], I'm not against having notable examples, presented in a neutral manner with suitable sources. The Daily Mail is almost always a poor source - certainly in this case. Further, the info reads like an advertisement and is far too much coverage for a single example of a single treatment device. --Ronz (talk) 20:19, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

This doesn't exist as a product yet, so should not be included except maybe as an extremely brief mention of a possible solution in development. Here's the press release on the latest study: http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2012-04/l-fss041712.php --Ronz (talk) 15:39, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


Hi Ronz, thank you for the link http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2012-04/l-fss041712.php, I will definitely include it in. I shall rephrase the information to make it sound less like an advertisement. However, I disagree that 4 lines is too much coverage, the 4 lines elaborate on how the growing rods work and hence explain why it is "surgery without fusion". Actually it exists as a product, but is not in the mainstream market yet, which is why it is stated "currently in development" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gicoro (talkcontribs) 12:44, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
This article is about scoliosis. A product in development that may or may not actually work deserves little or no treatment in this article.
Another editor agrees, adding the concern that WP:MEDRS applies. Given the promotional nature of most of the material on the product to date, the medical claims made, and the fact that it is only in initial testing, I agree that we should wait until better sources as required from WP:MEDRS are available.
Even when we find better sources, we still need to make a better attempt to present it with due weight to all other products and treatments. --Ronz (talk) 16:05, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
I disagree, these magnetically controlled growth rods deserve attention as they are being developed specifically to treat scoliosis and are hence relevant to the article. I have included better sources including yours. I have currently avoided to present it with due weight to avoid sounding promotional but from the sources including yours, response has been positive thus far. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gicoro (talkcontribs) 17:59, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Having read the Lancet paper and a commentary on the paper in the same issue, I think it is worth mentioning here. I've removed all reference to the manufacturer. And I think I've made it clear this is early days. [2] --Anthonyhcole (talk) 19:17, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi Anthonyhcole and Ronz, thanks for improving the portion on the magnetically-controlled growth rods and adding better sources, it is much appreciated and I believe this information would be of help to the readers. Gicoro (talk) 10:45, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
I'll defer to Anthonyhcole for a year or so. Then we'll need to look for any developments and update the information accordingly. Right now we have a preliminary study and an editorial on that preliminary study. --Ronz (talk) 16:16, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

FT article discussing Richard III skeleton[edit]

  • [FT Link]
  • The slides revealed the body’s twisted spine, with evidence of severe scoliosis, although not as pronounced as that depicted by Shakespeare’s portrayal of the king as a hunchback.

Inadequacies of illustrations[edit]

None of the illustrations gives the layman visual context of lateral, not longitudinal, curvature in the body as a whole. The main photograph at the top is misleading and the diagrams are too zoomed-in on the deformity itself. --Nat (talk) 21:32, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

If[edit]

If someone would put a platform in one shoe to compensate for one leg being longer- would this correct the bad spine? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.28.131.21 (talk) 14:11, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Head Image[edit]

Hello. While reading through a set of applications to a summer program, I came to this page hoping to find basic information on scoliosis and whether it would affect a prospective students participation. I was shocked and taken aback when I opened the page to see a picture gruesome skeleton in a glass case, imagining for a moment that that was what this student looked like. Of course I understand in theory a "real example" might be preferable in some medical topics, but in this case, I would expect a professional medical drawing of the spine to illustrate this affliction (such as the one found further down the page), not a picture of a dessicated skeleton in a glass box. ~~Tom — Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.2.72.41 (talk) 14:37, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree Tom. I've changed the top image into an anatomical diagram. Rwendland (talk) 17:23, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Neuromechanics of idiopathic scoliosis[edit]

There is no need for a separate article as it simply makes the content unavailable to readers (who are unlikely to spontaneously navigate here). Information here would be better presented in the scoliosis article, which would have the additional benefit of having more context. If that is not possible, this article should be renamed to the more logical and accessible title Idiopathic scoliosis Tom (LT) (talk) 21:51, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

The main page is getting to large. We need subpages to break up the content. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:44, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Pronunciation[edit]

What the IPA says rhymes with "ball-bit-oh-sis", not "bowl-bee-oh-sis". I've never heard it pronounced like this in my life, but if it's standard somewhere (I speak Standard American English), I just want to verify it. Especially the second syllable. I'm not even sure how one would pronounce [ɪ] right before [oʊ]. It seems to me the second syllable should have [i]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CatFiggy (talkcontribs) 04:38, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Problems with After-Surgery Care section[edit]

This section does not belong here. It is general advice about after-surgery care for any surgery, rather that being anything specific to Scoliosis surgery. It is also has a different (lower) level of assumed knowledge from the rest of the article: although there undoubtedly are readers who do not know what a catheter is (for example), such readers would never get to this point in such a fairly "advanced" article.

One solution to the issues I raise would be to transfer the contents of this section to a new article (if one does not already exist), and just to make a brief reference here to that article. I am not sufficiently experienced to attempt this myself, and in any case there may be other possible solutions.

MalcolmStory21 (talk) 22:29, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Prevention (including)[edit]

Swimming and dipping in swimming pool (hydrodynamical and hydrostatical water properties are significant). Neurons regenerate more at water because of its hydrostatical and hydrodynamical properties. Organization of Neurons: neuronal pools. Shoe_insert. Posture Corrector. RippleSax (talk) 18:29, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

History section?[edit]

The current history section reads so, so poorly; mostly because it has no paragraph breaks. I would do it myself but I wouldn't be certain where it is appropriate to break the text into paragraphs. Nerarth (talk) 00:41, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree the current monster one para History section is difficult to read. Two years ago the article had what I considered a pretty reasonable "History of surgical techniques" sub-section.[3] But this has been removed. I think that, at least, this might warrant reinsertion as part of a rewrite. In fact two years ago there was a much fuller section on Surgery in general - which I think should be at least partly recovered. Rwendland (talk) 10:53, 25 August 2017 (UTC)