Abstract
IntroductionIt has been reported that AIS rely much more on ankle proprioception to control the amplitude of the balance control commands as compared to age-matched healthy adolescents. Our hypothesis was that AIS do not neglect proprioceptive information to control posture probably because of their vestibular deficits. We investigated the proprioceptive contribution to postural control in AIS which expresses spinal deformity during a crucial transitional period of ontogenesis.Methods10 adolescents with idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) with moderate spinal deformity (10° < Cobb Angle >35°) and 10 control adolescents (CA) had to maintain vertical stance while very slow oscillations in the frontal plane (below the detection threshold of the semicircular canal system) were applied to the support with the eyes open and closed. Postural orientation and segmental stabilisation were analysed at head, shoulder, trunk and pelvis levels.ResultsScoliosis did not affect vertical orientation control and segmental stabilization strategies. Vision improves postural control in both CA and AIS, which seem more dependent on visual cues than adults.ConclusionsAIS as CA were unable to control efficiently their postural orientation on the basis of the proprioceptive cues, the only sensory information available in the EC situation, whereas in the same condition healthy young adults present no difficulty to achieve the postural control. This suggests that AIS as CA transitory neglect proprioceptive information to control their posture. These results and previous studies suggest the existence of different afferent pathways for proprioceptive information subserving different parts in sensory integration of postural control. We conclude that the static proprioceptive system is not affected by the idiopathic scoliosis, while the dynamic proprioceptive system would be mainly affected.
Highlights
It has been reported that adolescents with idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) rely much more on ankle proprioception to control the amplitude of the balance control commands as compared to age-matched healthy adolescents
The platform’s movement was so low that it would be below the detection threshold for vestibular semi-circular canal stimuli this condition this information should not contribute to balance control This same paradigm applied to healthy adolescents [5] has shown that adolescents’ postural control is much less efficient than those of adults
We have previously shown that control adolescents (CA) were unable to achieve correctly the postural control on the basis of the proprioceptive cues alone and we have concluded that healthy adolescents transitory neglect the proprioceptive cues
Summary
It has been reported that AIS rely much more on ankle proprioception to control the amplitude of the balance control commands as compared to age-matched healthy adolescents. We investigated the proprioceptive contribution to postural control in AIS which expresses spinal deformity during a crucial transitional period of ontogenesis. We have demonstrated in young healthy subjects that proprioceptive cues are predominant in the control of body orientation rather than visual or vestibular cues for the control of upright body posture [4]. The platform’s movement was so low that it would be below the detection threshold for vestibular semi-circular canal stimuli this condition this information should not contribute to balance control This same paradigm applied to healthy adolescents [5] has shown that adolescents’ postural control is much less efficient than those of adults. This suggests that vision plays a predominant role in adolescents’ control of body’s orientation and stabilisation, as previously reported in infants during the period of acquisition of the main motor abilities [6]
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
