Adolescent idiopathic scoliosis is traditionally defined as a three-dimensional spinal deformity emerging during growth without a clearly identifiable cause, yet its clinical and social significance extends far beyond adolescence. Over the last four decades, large natural-history cohorts, long-term observational studies, and postoperative follow-ups have demonstrated that idiopathic scoliosis is not a benign childhood condition but a lifelong musculoskeletal disorder with complex consequences for pain, function, self-image, respiratory capacity, and quality of life. Simultaneously, the interpretation of treatment success in adult scoliosis has evolved, driven by patient-reported outcome measures and by a growing recognition that statistical significance alone does not equate to meaningful improvement. The concept of the smallest worthwhile effect, originally developed in physiotherapy and pharmacologic research, has recently emerged as a more patient-centered and ethically grounded alternative to conventional minimal clinically important difference thresholds. This article integrates these two bodies of scholarship to produce a unified, longitudinal and patient-anchored interpretation of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis from its onset through adulthood.

Drawing exclusively on established natural-history studies, contemporary adult follow-ups, and methodological research on smallest worthwhile effect, this work re-examines how progression, symptoms, disability, and treatment benefits should be interpreted. Long-term cohorts have demonstrated that untreated idiopathic scoliosis can remain stable in many individuals yet may also progress, causing increasing pain, cardiopulmonary compromise, and psychosocial distress decades after skeletal maturity (Weinstein et al., 1981; Weinstein et al., 2003; Weinstein, 2019; Erwin et al., 2020). Surgical correction in adolescence can alter curve magnitude and alignment, but adult outcomes show persistent variability in pain and quality of life, indicating that radiographic correction does not guarantee durable symptomatic relief (Helenius et al., 2019; Ansari et al., 2024). These realities expose a fundamental gap in outcome evaluation: clinicians often rely on structural or statistically derived thresholds, whereas patients prioritize whether a change is actually worth the risks, burden, and long-term trade-offs of treatment.

The smallest worthwhile effect framework addresses this gap by explicitly integrating benefit–harm trade-offs into outcome interpretation. Rather than asking whether a score change is statistically or minimally important, the framework asks how much improvement a patient requires before considering an intervention worthwhile given its risks, costs, and inconveniences (Ferreira et al., 2013; Ferreira, 2018; Hansford et al., 2024). Finch (2025) extended this paradigm to adult idiopathic scoliosis, arguing that traditional minimal clinically important difference values underestimate the magnitude of benefit patients demand when faced with surgery, prolonged rehabilitation, or lifelong implants. When applied to scoliosis, this framework reveals that many interventions classified as “effective” may fail to reach the threshold of meaningfulness from the patient’s perspective.

Through a comprehensive synthesis of natural history, adult outcomes, and patient-centered measurement theory, this article argues that adolescent idiopathic scoliosis should be conceptualized as a lifelong risk condition rather than a childhood deformity, and that treatment success should be judged by whether it delivers benefits that exceed the smallest worthwhile effect for the individual. Such a reframing has profound implications for clinical decision-making, shared decision-making, and health-policy evaluation. It suggests that early intervention, observation, and surgery must all be evaluated not merely by their ability to change curves or scores but by their capacity to produce improvements that patients truly value across decades of life.