4.3 Article

Adolescent spinal pain: The pediatric orthopedist's point of view

Journal

ORTHOPAEDICS & TRAUMATOLOGY-SURGERY & RESEARCH
Volume 101, Issue 6, Pages S247-S250

Publisher

ELSEVIER MASSON, CORPORATION OFFICE
DOI: 10.1016/j.otsr.2015.06.012

Keywords

Spinal pain; Natural history; Public health; Disc degeneration

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Introduction: Ten to twenty percent of persons experience spinal pain during growth. Causes are diverse in adolescents, and it is essential to determine etiology rapidly so as to guide optimal management. Hypothesis: It is important for the pediatric orthopedist to understand the natural history of conditions inducing spinal pain. Material and methods: A retrospective study included 116 adolescents presenting with spinal pain at the Hopital Nord (Marseille, France) between January 1, 2009 and January 1, 2014. Malignant tumoral etiologies were excluded. Mean patient age was 13.6 years. Risser ranged between >0 and <5. Interview and clinical examination ( skin, spine, neurologic examination, general clinical examination) were systematic; depending on results, complementary examinations (imaging, biology, biopsy) were prescribed. Results: There were 32 cases of non-specific adolescent low back pain, 31 of lumbar or thoracolumbar scoliosis, 23 of spinal growth dystrophy (Scheuermann's disease), 13 of isthmic lysis, 5 of spondylolisthesis, 8 of transitional lumbosacral hinge abnormality, 2 of discal hernia, 1 of osteoid osteoma and 1 of eosinophil granuloma. Treatment was often non-operative when diagnosis was sufficiently early. In case of failure, surgery could generally be considered. Discussion: Correctly indicated non-operative management or surgery changes the natural history of these pathologies. The aim of treatment is to resolve pain in adolescence, as it risks becoming chronic and disabling by adulthood. (C) 2015 Published by Elsevier Masson SAS.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available