OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to analyze the proximal thoracic (PT) flexibility and its compensatory ability above the "potential UIV."
SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Shoulder and neck imbalance can be caused by overcorrection of the main thoracic (MT) curve due to inability of PT segment to compensate.
METHODS: Cervical supine side bending (CSB) radiographs of 100 Lenke 1 and 2 patients were studied. We further stratified Lenke 1 curves into Lenke 1-ve: PT side bending (PTSB) 80.0% of cases of the PT segment were unable to compensate at T3-T6. In Lenke 1+ve curves, 78.4% were unable to compensate at T6, followed by T5 (75.7%), T4 (73.0%), T3 (59.5%), T2 (27.0%), and T1 (21.6%). In Lenke 1-ve curves, 36.4% of cases were unable to compensate at T6, followed by T5 (45.5%), T4 (45.5%), T3 (30.3%), T2 (21.2%), and T1 (15.2%). A significant difference between Lenke 1-ve and Lenke 1+ve was observed from T3 to T6. The difference between Lenke 1+ve and Lenke 2 curves was significant only at T2.
CONCLUSION: The compensation ability and the flexibility of the PT segments of Lenke 1-ve and Lenke 1+ve curves were different. Lenke 1+ve curves demonstrated similar characteristics to Lenke 2 curves.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the association between postoperative upper instrumented vertebrae (UIV) tilt angle with postoperative medial shoulder and neck imbalance.
SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Studies had found that current recommendations for UIV selection were not predictive of good postoperative shoulder balance.
METHODS: A total of 98 patients with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis with Lenke 1/2 curves who underwent posterior spinal fusion between 2013 and 2014 with minimum follow-up of 2 years were recruited. Radiological parameters: UIV tilt angle, T1 tilt, cervical axis, and clavicle angle were measured preoperatively, postoperatively, and at final follow-up.
RESULTS: Mean age was 16.2 ± 6.2 years. Mean follow-up was 37.9 ± 6.5 months. There were 73.5% Lenke 1 and 26.5% Lenke 2 curves. Significant factors affecting postoperative T1 Tilt were postoperative UIV tilt angle, preoperative T1 tilt, and preoperative UIV tilt angle. Postoperative UIV tilt angle and preoperative cervical axis were significant factors affecting cervical axis at final follow-up. UIV level was not significant independent factor that affected postoperative T1 tilt and cervical axis. There was strong correlation between postoperative UIV tilt angle and T1 tilt for the whole cohort (P
METHOD: Eligible healthy Malay volunteers were invited to undergo the high-resolution esophageal manometry (inSIGHT Ultima, Diversatek Healthcare, Milwaukee, WI, USA). In recumbent and standing positions, test swallows were performed using liquid, viscous, and solid materials. Metrics including integrated relaxation pressure 4 s (IRP-4 s, mmHg), distal contractile integral (DCI, mmHg s cm), distal latency (DL, s), and peristaltic break (PB, cm) were reported in median and 95th percentile.
RESULTS: Fifty of 57 screened participants were recruited, and 586 saline, 265 viscous, and 261 solid swallows were analyzed. Per-patient wise, in the recumbent position, 95th percentile for IRP-4 s, DCI, DL, and PB were 16.5 mmHg, 2431 mmHg s cm, 8.5 s, and 7.2 cm, respectively. We observed that with each posture, the use of viscous swallows led to changes in DL, but the use of solid swallows led to more changes in the metrics including DCI and length of PB. Compared with a recumbent posture, anupright posture led to lower IRP-4 s and DCI values. Both per-patient analysis and per-swallow analyses yielded almost similar results when comparing the different postures and types of swallows. No major motility disorders were observed in this cohort of asymptomatic population. However, more motility disorders were reported in the upright position.
CONCLUSIONS: Variations in metrics can be observed in different postures and with different provocative swallow materials in a healthy population. The normative Chicago 3.0 metrics are also determined for the Malay population.
METHODS: In this cross-over study, study participants were randomized to perform the initial peak expiratory flow (PEF) measurement in either standing or sitting position. The highest of three readings in each position were compared using paired t-test. A mean difference of