Preview

Variant: 1 Child. Congenital scoliosis. Initial imaging.

Procedure	Appropriateness Category
Radiography complete spine	Usually Appropriate
MRI complete spine without IV contrast	Usually Appropriate
CT spine area of interest without IV contrast	May Be Appropriate (Disagreement)
Bone scan complete spine	Usually Not Appropriate
MRI complete spine without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate
CT spine area of interest with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate
CT spine area of interest without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate

Variant: 2 Child (0 to 9 years of age). Early onset idiopathic scoliosis. Initial imaging.

Procedure	Appropriateness Category
Radiography complete spine	Usually Appropriate
MRI complete spine without IV contrast	Usually Appropriate
Bone scan complete spine	Usually Not Appropriate
MRI complete spine without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate
CT spine area of interest with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate
CT spine area of interest without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate
CT spine area of interest without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate

Variant: 3 Adolescent (10 to 17 years of age). Adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. No risk factors. Initial imaging.

Procedure	Appropriateness Category
Radiography complete spine	Usually Appropriate
Bone scan complete spine	Usually Not Appropriate
MRI complete spine without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate
MRI complete spine without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate
CT spine area of interest with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate
CT spine area of interest without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate
CT spine area of interest without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate

Variant: 4 Adolescent (10 to 17 years of age). Adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Risk factors. Initial imaging.

Procedure	Appropriateness Category
Radiography complete spine	Usually Appropriate
MRI complete spine without IV contrast	Usually Appropriate
Bone scan complete spine	Usually Not Appropriate
MRI complete spine without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate
CT spine area of interest with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate
CT spine area of interest without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate
CT spine area of interest without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate

Jeremy Y. Jones, MD^a; Gaurav Saigal, MD^b; Susan Palasis, MD^c; Timothy N. Booth, MD^d; Laura L. Hayes, MD^e; Ramesh S. Iyer, MD^f; Nadja Kadom, MD^g; Abhaya V. Kulkarni, MD^h; Sarah S. Milla, MDⁱ; John S. Myseros, MD^j; Charles Reitman, MD^k; Richard L. Robertson, MD^l; Maura E. Ryan, MD^m; Jacob Schulz, MDⁿ; Bruno P. Soares, MD^o; Aylin Tekes, MD^p; Andrew T. Trout, MD^q; Boaz Karmazyn, MD^r.

Initial imaging is defined as imaging at the beginning of the care episode for the medical condition defined by the variant. More than one procedure can be considered usually appropriate in the initial imaging evaluation when:

There are procedures that are equivalent alternatives (i.e., only one procedure will be ordered to provide the clinical information to effectively manage the patient’s care)

There are complementary procedures (i.e., more than one procedure is ordered as a set or simultaneously wherein each procedure provides unique clinical information to effectively manage the patient’s care).

The evidence table, literature search, and appendix for this topic are available at https://acsearch.acr.org/list. The appendix includes the strength of evidence assessment and the final rating round tabulations for each recommendation.

For additional information on the Appropriateness Criteria methodology and other supporting documents, please visit https://www.acr.org/Clinical-Resources/Clinical-Tools-and-Reference/Appropriateness-Criteria.

The ACR acknowledges the limitations in applying inclusive language when citing research studies that predates the use of the current understanding of language inclusive of diversity in sex, intersex, gender, and gender-diverse people. The data variables regarding sex and gender used in the cited literature will not be changed. However, this guideline will use the terminology and definitions as proposed by the National Institutes of Health.

Appropriateness Category Name	Appropriateness Rating	Appropriateness Category Definition
Usually Appropriate	7, 8, or 9	The imaging procedure or treatment is indicated in the specified clinical scenarios at a favorable risk-benefit ratio for patients.
May Be Appropriate	4, 5, or 6	The imaging procedure or treatment may be indicated in the specified clinical scenarios as an alternative to imaging procedures or treatments with a more favorable risk-benefit ratio, or the risk-benefit ratio for patients is equivocal.
May Be Appropriate (Disagreement)	5	The individual ratings are too dispersed from the panel median. The different label provides transparency regarding the panel’s recommendation. “May be appropriate” is the rating category and a rating of 5 is assigned.
Usually Not Appropriate	1, 2, or 3	The imaging procedure or treatment is unlikely to be indicated in the specified clinical scenarios, or the risk-benefit ratio for patients is likely to be unfavorable.

Potential adverse health effects associated with radiation exposure are an important factor to consider when selecting the appropriate imaging procedure. Because there is a wide range of radiation exposures associated with different diagnostic procedures, a relative radiation level (RRL) indication has been included for each imaging examination. The RRLs are based on effective dose, which is a radiation dose quantity that is used to estimate population total radiation risk associated with an imaging procedure. Patients in the pediatric age group are at inherently higher risk from exposure, because of both organ sensitivity and longer life expectancy (relevant to the long latency that appears to accompany radiation exposure). For these reasons, the RRL dose estimate ranges for pediatric examinations are lower as compared with those specified for adults (see Table below). Additional information regarding radiation dose assessment for imaging examinations can be found in the ACR Appropriateness Criteria^® Radiation Dose Assessment Introduction document.

Relative Radiation Level Designations
Relative Radiation Level*	Adult Effective Dose Estimate Range	Pediatric Effective Dose Estimate Range
O	0 mSv	0 mSv
☢	<0.1 mSv	<0.03 mSv
☢☢	0.1-1 mSv	0.03-0.3 mSv
☢☢☢	1-10 mSv	0.3-3 mSv
☢☢☢☢	10-30 mSv	3-10 mSv
☢☢☢☢☢	30-100 mSv	10-30 mSv
*RRL assignments for some of the examinations cannot be made, because the actual patient doses in these procedures vary as a function of a number of factors (e.g., region of the body exposed to ionizing radiation, the imaging guidance that is used). The RRLs for these examinations are designated as “Varies.”

1. [20634252] Musson RE, Warren DJ, Bickle I, Connolly DJ, Griffiths PD. Imaging in childhood scoliosis: a pictorial review. Postgrad Med J. 2010;86(1017):419-427.
2. [22009775] Qiu Y, Zhu F, Wang B, et al. Clinical etiological classification of scoliosis: report of 1289 cases. Orthop Surg. 2009;1(1):12-16.
3. [19308396] Khanna G. Role of imaging in scoliosis. Pediatr Radiol. 2009;39 Suppl 2:S247-251.
4. [15466727] Davids JR, Chamberlin E, Blackhurst DW. Indications for magnetic resonance imaging in presumed adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2004;86-A(10):2187-2195.
5. [20479697] Nakahara D, Yonezawa I, Kobanawa K, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging evaluation of patients with idiopathic scoliosis: a prospective study of four hundred seventy-two outpatients. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2011;36(7):E482-485.
6. [21178850] Diab M, Landman Z, Lubicky J, Dormans J, Erickson M, Richards BS. Use and outcome of MRI in the surgical treatment of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2011;36(8):667-671.
7. [19506867] Ozturk C, Karadereler S, Ornek I, Enercan M, Ganiyusufoglu K, Hamzaoglu A. The role of routine magnetic resonance imaging in the preoperative evaluation of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Int Orthop. 2010;34(4):543-546.
8. [23143092] Qiao J, Zhu Z, Zhu F, et al. Indication for preoperative MRI of neural axis abnormalities in patients with presumed thoracolumbar/lumbar idiopathic scoliosis. Eur Spine J. 2013;22(2):360-366.
9. [16845359] Benli IT, Uzumcugil O, Aydin E, Ates B, Gurses L, Hekimoglu B. Magnetic resonance imaging abnormalities of neural axis in Lenke type 1 idiopathic scoliosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2006;31(16):1828-1833.
10. [19602995] Cardoso M, Keating RF. Neurosurgical management of spinal dysraphism and neurogenic scoliosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2009;34(17):1775-1782.
11. [15292418] Belmont PJ, Jr., Kuklo TR, Taylor KF, Freedman BA, Prahinski JR, Kruse RW. Intraspinal anomalies associated with isolated congenital hemivertebra: the role of routine magnetic resonance imaging. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2004;86-A(8):1704-1710.
12. [24782912] Knott P, Pappo E, Cameron M, et al. SOSORT 2012 consensus paper: reducing x-ray exposure in pediatric patients with scoliosis. Scoliosis. 2014;9:4.
13. [-3101679] American College of Radiology. ACR-SPR-SSR Practice Parameter for the Performance of Radiography for Scoliosis in Children. Available at: https://gravitas.acr.org/PPTS/GetDocumentView?docId=44+&releaseId=2
14. [16758107] Kluba T, Schafer J, Hahnfeldt T, Niemeyer T. Prospective randomized comparison of radiation exposure from full spine radiographs obtained in three different techniques. Eur Spine J. 2006;15(6):752-756.
15. [20228703] Deschenes S, Charron G, Beaudoin G, et al. Diagnostic imaging of spinal deformities: reducing patients radiation dose with a new slot-scanning X-ray imager. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2010;35(9):989-994.
16. [18458587] Sakai Y, Matsuyama Y, Nakamura H, et al. Segmental pedicle screwing for idiopathic scoliosis using computer-assisted surgery. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2008;21(3):181-186.
17. [22020579] Ughwanogho E, Patel NM, Baldwin KD, Sampson NR, Flynn JM. Computed tomography-guided navigation of thoracic pedicle screws for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis results in more accurate placement and less screw removal. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2012;37(8):E473-478.
18. [18810453] Abul-Kasim K, Overgaard A, Maly P, Ohlin A, Gunnarsson M, Sundgren PC. Low-dose helical computed tomography (CT) in the perioperative workup of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Eur Radiol. 2009;19(3):610-618.
19. [9070524] Ramirez N, Johnston CE, Browne RH. The prevalence of back pain in children who have idiopathic scoliosis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1997;79(3):364-368.
20. [18622610] Davies A, Saifuddin A. Imaging of painful scoliosis. Skeletal Radiol. 2009;38(3):207-223.
21. [17945129] Hedequist DJ. Surgical treatment of congenital scoliosis. Orthop Clin North Am. 2007;38(4):497-509, vi.
22. [21057122] Kim H, Kim HS, Moon ES, et al. Scoliosis imaging: what radiologists should know. Radiographics. 2010;30(7):1823-1842.
23. [15114284] Kose N, Campbell RM. Congenital scoliosis. Med Sci Monit. 2004;10(5):RA104-110.
24. [23197014] Shen J, Wang Z, Liu J, Xue X, Qiu G. Abnormalities associated with congenital scoliosis: a retrospective study of 226 Chinese surgical cases. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2013;38(10):814-818.
25. [19644327] Kawakami N, Tsuji T, Imagama S, Lenke LG, Puno RM, Kuklo TR. Classification of congenital scoliosis and kyphosis: a new approach to the three-dimensional classification for progressive vertebral anomalies requiring operative treatment. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2009;34(17):1756-1765.
26. [21150659] Wu ZX, Huang LY, Sang HX, et al. Accuracy and safety assessment of pedicle screw placement using the rapid prototyping technique in severe congenital scoliosis. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2011;24(7):444-450.
27. [19907198] Liu W, Zheng D, Cui S, et al. Characteristics of osseous septum of split cord malformation in patients presenting with scoliosis: a retrospective study of 48 cases. Pediatr Neurosurg. 2009;45(5):350-353.
28. [23223957] Koc T, Lam KS, Webb JK. Are intraspinal anomalies in early onset idiopathic scoliosis as common as once thought? A two centre United Kingdom study. Eur Spine J. 2013;22(6):1250-1254.
29. [20173173] Malfair D, Flemming AK, Dvorak MF, et al. Radiographic evaluation of scoliosis: self-assessment module. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2010;194(3 Suppl):S23-25.
30. [19454995] Pahys JM, Samdani AF, Betz RR. Intraspinal anomalies in infantile idiopathic scoliosis: prevalence and role of magnetic resonance imaging. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2009;34(12):E434-438.
31. [21191550] Trobisch P, Suess O, Schwab F. Idiopathic scoliosis. Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2010;107(49):875-883; quiz 884.
32. [17572623] Donaldson S, Stephens D, Howard A, Alman B, Narayanan U, Wright JG. Surgical decision making in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2007;32(14):1526-1532.
33. [21221052] Chen ZQ, Wang CF, Bai YS, et al. Using precisely controlled bidirectional orthopedic forces to assess flexibility in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: comparisons between push-traction film, supine side bending, suspension, and fulcrum bending film. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2011;36(20):1679-1684.
34. [15507812] Davis BJ, Gadgil A, Trivedi J, Ahmed el NB. Traction radiography performed under general anesthetic: a new technique for assessing idiopathic scoliosis curves. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2004;29(21):2466-2470.
35. [24220308] Li J, Hwang S, Wang F, et al. An innovative fulcrum-bending radiographical technique to assess curve flexibility in patients with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2013;38(24):E1527-1532.
36. [21336177] Ni HJ, Su JC, Lu YH, et al. Using side-bending radiographs to determine the distal fusion level in patients with single thoracic idiopathic scoliosis undergoing posterior correction with pedicle screws. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2011;24(7):437-443.
37. [17978661] Watanabe K, Kawakami N, Nishiwaki Y, et al. Traction versus supine side-bending radiographs in determining flexibility: what factors influence these techniques? Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2007;32(23):2604-2609.
38. [18007242] Cheh G, Lenke LG, Lehman RA, Jr., Kim YJ, Nunley R, Bridwell KH. The reliability of preoperative supine radiographs to predict the amount of curve flexibility in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2007;32(24):2668-2672.
39. [17108820] Knott P, Mardjetko S, Nance D, Dunn M. Electromagnetic topographical technique of curve evaluation for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2006;31(24):E911-915; discussion E916.
40. [22362109] Liu J, Shen J, Zhang J, et al. The position of the aorta relative to the spine for pedicle screw placement in the correction of idiopathic scoliosis. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2012;25(4):E103-107.
41. [20173177] Malfair D, Flemming AK, Dvorak MF, et al. Radiographic evaluation of scoliosis: review. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2010;194(3 Suppl):S8-22.
42. [23064856] Singhal R, Perry DC, Prasad S, Davidson NT, Bruce CE. The use of routine preoperative magnetic resonance imaging in identifying intraspinal anomalies in patients with idiopathic scoliosis: a 10-year review. Eur Spine J. 2013;22(2):355-359.
43. [20081514] Wu L, Qiu Y, Wang B, Zhu ZZ, Ma WW. The left thoracic curve pattern: a strong predictor for neural axis abnormalities in patients with "idiopathic" scoliosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2010;35(2):182-185.
44. [21194284] Magge SN, Smyth MD, Governale LS, et al. Idiopathic syrinx in the pediatric population: a combined center experience. J Neurosurg Pediatr. 2011;7(1):30-36.
45. [23472665] Joseph RN, Batty R, Raghavan A, Sinha S, Griffiths PD, Connolly DJ. Management of isolated syringomyelia in the paediatric population--a review of imaging and follow-up in a single centre. Br J Neurosurg. 2013;27(5):683-686.
46. [25421548] Sha S, Zhang W, Qiu Y, Liu Z, Zhu F, Zhu Z. Evolution of syrinx in patients undergoing posterior correction for scoliosis associated with syringomyelia. Eur Spine J. 2015;24(5):955-962.
47. [21194283] Krieger MD, Falkinstein Y, Bowen IE, Tolo VT, McComb JG. Scoliosis and Chiari malformation Type I in children. J Neurosurg Pediatr. 2011;7(1):25-29.
48. [-3128692] American College of Radiology. ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Radiation Dose Assessment Introduction. Available at: https://edge.sitecorecloud.io/americancoldf5f-acrorgf92a-productioncb02-3650/media/ACR/Files/Clinical/Appropriateness-Criteria/ACR-Appropriateness-Criteria-Radiation-Dose-Assessment-Introduction.pdf.

The ACR Committee on Appropriateness Criteria and its expert panels have developed criteria for determining appropriate imaging examinations for diagnosis and treatment of specified medical condition(s). These criteria are intended to guide radiologists, radiation oncologists and referring physicians in making decisions regarding radiologic imaging and treatment. Generally, the complexity and severity of a patient’s clinical condition should dictate the selection of appropriate imaging procedures or treatments. Only those examinations generally used for evaluation of the patient’s condition are ranked. Other imaging studies necessary to evaluate other co-existent diseases or other medical consequences of this condition are not considered in this document. The availability of equipment or personnel may influence the selection of appropriate imaging procedures or treatments. Imaging techniques classified as investigational by the FDA have not been considered in developing these criteria; however, study of new equipment and applications should be encouraged. The ultimate decision regarding the appropriateness of any specific radiologic examination or treatment must be made by the referring physician and radiologist in light of all the circumstances presented in an individual examination

Scoliosis-Child