The effectiveness of the SpineCor brace for the conservative treatment of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Comparison with the Boston brace

A comparison between Boston brace and European braces in the treatment of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) patients: a systematic review based on the standardised Scoliosis Research Society (SRS) inclusion criteria for brace treatment

PURPOSE

To compare the Boston brace and European braces using a standardised Scoliosis Research Society (SRS) inclusion criteria for brace treatment as well as consensus recommendations for treatment outcome.

METHODS

This was a systematic review that was carried out using MeSH terminology in our search protocol in PubMed, Cochrane Library, Scopus, Clinicaltrials.gov and Web of Science database between 1976 and 29th of Jan 2023. All studies that were included in this review had applied fully/partially the SRS inclusion criteria for brace wear. Outcome measures were divided into primary and secondary outcome measures.

RESULTS

3830 literatures were found in which 176 literatures were deemed relevant to the study once duplicates were removed and titles and abstracts were screened. Of these literatures, only 15 had fulfilled the eligibility criteria and were included in the study. 8 of the studies were Level IV studies, 5 were Level III studies and 2 studies were Level I studies (1 prospective randomised controlled trial (RCT) and 1 Quasi-RCT). The percentage of patients who avoided surgery for European braces ranged from 88 to 100%, whereas for Boston brace ranged from 70 to 94%. When treatment success was assessed based on the final Cobb angle > 45°, approximately 15% of patients treated with European braces had treatment failure. In contrast, 20-63% of patients treated with Boston brace had curves > 45° at skeletal maturity. The BrAIST study used a cut-off point of 50° to define failure of treatment and the rate of treatment failure was 28%. Curve correction was not achieved in most patients (24-51% of patients) who were treated with the Chêneau brace and its derivatives. However, none of the patients treated with Boston brace achieved curve correction.

CONCLUSION

Boston brace and European braces were effective in the prevention of surgery. In addition, curve stabilisation was achieved in most studies. Limitation in current literature included lack of studies providing high level of evidence and lack of standardisation in terms of compliance to brace as well as multidisciplinary management of brace wear.

The classification of scoliosis braces developed by SOSORT with SRS, ISPO, and POSNA and approved by ESPRM

PURPOSE

Studies have shown that bracing is an effective treatment for patients with idiopathic scoliosis. According to the current classification, almost all braces fall in the thoracolumbosacral orthosis (TLSO) category. Consequently, the generalization of scientific results is either impossible or misleading. This study aims to produce a classification of the brace types.

METHODS

Four scientific societies (SOSORT, SRS, ISPO, and POSNA) invited all their members to be part of the study. Six level 1 experts developed the initial classifications. At a consensus meeting with 26 other experts and societies' officials, thematic analysis and general discussion allowed to define the classification (minimum 80% agreement). The classification was applied to the braces published in the literature and officially approved by the 4 scientific societies and by ESPRM.

RESULTS

The classification is based on the following classificatory items: anatomy (CTLSO, TLSO, LSO), rigidity (very rigid, rigid, elastic), primary corrective plane (frontal, sagittal, transverse, frontal & sagittal, frontal & transverse, sagittal & transverse, three-dimensional), construction-valves (monocot, bivalve, multisegmented), construction-closure (dorsal, lateral, ventral), and primary action (bending, detorsion, elongation, movement, push-up, three points). The experts developed a definition for each item and were able to classify the 15 published braces into nine groups.

CONCLUSION

The classification is based on the best current expertise (the lowest level of evidence). Experts recognize that this is the first edition and will change with future understanding and research. The broad application of this classification could have value for brace research, education, clinical practice, and growth in this field.

Active Soft Brace for Scoliotic Spine: A Finite Element Study to Evaluate in-Brace Correction

Scoliosis is a spinal disorder that is conventionally treated using rigid or soft braces. Computational methods such as finite element-based models are used to investigate the mechanics of the spine and the effect of braces. Most spinal braces are either passive, static, or rigid and do not allow mobility to the spine, resulting in muscle atrophy, skin deterioration and other spine complexities. Lack of control over the amount of force being exerted by braces on the human spine could have adverse effects. Therefore, developing an active soft brace which allows mobility to the spine while applying controlled corrective forces could be a promising solution. This study presents finite element analysis (FEA) of an active soft brace that applies corrective forces using elastic bands. The pressure exerted by the brace on the spine can be controlled by varying the tensions in the elastic bands. The elastic band tensions are controlled using low-power, lightweight, and twisted string actuators (TSAs). This study aims to demonstrate the immediate corrections induced by the soft active brace using a scoliotic spine finite element (FE) model. A FE model of the patient’s trunk was created and validated with in vitro study. The brace model was installed on the simulated trunk to evaluate in-brace correction in both sagittal and coronal planes. The brace was evaluated under various load cases by simulating the actuator action.

[Is it possible to improve treatment safety in the brace treatment of scoliosis patients by using standardized CAD algorithms?]

Hintergrund

Die Versorgung von Skoliosepatienten mit korrigierenden Rumpforthesen führt auch heutzutage noch zu recht unterschiedlichen Ergebnissen. Publizierte Erfolgsquoten zwischen 50 und 90 % führen zwangsläufig zu der Frage, wie sich die Erfolgsquoten der Korsettversorgung steigern und vereinheitlichen lassen. Die Ergebnisse einer mit dieser Zielsetzung weiterentwickelten computerunterstützen (CAD/„Computer Aided Design“) Chêneau-Versorgung werden dargestellt.

Methodik

Am Stichtag (08.12.2019) wurde die prospektiv angelegte Datenbank unserer Abteilung retrospektiv ausgewertet. Es waren ausschließlich unreife Mädchen mit einer Adoleszentenskoliose, Alter 10–14 Jahre, Risser 0–2 in die Datenbank aufgenommen worden.

Ergebnisse

Sowohl die Gesamtgruppe mit einem Beobachtungszeitraum von mindestens 18 Monaten als auch die Patientinnengruppen mit bereits erreichtem Behandlungsabschluss zeigten Erfolgsraten zwischen 86 und 88 %. Die Ergebnisse insgesamt waren signifikant besser als die Erfolgsrate der Boston-Brace-Kontrollgruppe (BRAIST) von 72 %. Auch im Vergleich mit den Ergebnissen anderer Chêneau-Derivate war die Erfolgsrate unserer Serie teils deutlich besser.

Schlussfolgerungen

Die Behandlungssicherheit für die Patienten mit Skoliosen sollte verbessert werden. Ein Ansatz hierzu kann die Verwendung standardisierter CAD-Bibliotheken sein. Weitere Untersuchungen mit Studiendesigns höherer Evidenz sind notwendig, um die in unserer Untersuchung gefundenen Ergebnisse zu untermauern.

Spinal Deformities and Advancement in Corrective Orthoses

Spinal deformity is an abnormality in the spinal curves and can seriously affect the activities of daily life. The conventional way to treat spinal deformities, such as scoliosis, kyphosis, and spondylolisthesis, is to use spinal orthoses (braces). Braces have been used for centuries to apply corrective forces to the spine to treat spinal deformities or to stabilize the spine during postoperative rehabilitation. Braces have not modernized with advancements in technology, and very few braces are equipped with smart sensory design and active actuation. There is a need to enable the orthotists, ergonomics practitioners, and developers to incorporate new technologies into the passive field of bracing. This article presents a review of the conventional passive braces and highlights the advancements in spinal orthoses in terms of improved sensory designs, active actuation mechanisms, and new construction methods (CAD/CAM, three-dimensional (3D) printing). This review includes 26 spinal orthoses, comprised of passive rigid/soft braces, active dynamics braces, and torso training devices for the rehabilitation of the spine.

Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis Bracing Success Is Influenced by Time in Brace: Comparative Effectiveness Analysis of BrAIST and ISICO Cohorts

STUDY DESIGN

Comparative effectiveness study OBJECTIVE.: To evaluate factors leading to higher percentage of brace failures in a cohort of North American patients with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis relative to their peers in Italy.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Studies of bracing in United States have shown worse outcomes than studies from European centers, possibly due to sample characteristics or treatment approaches.

METHODS

Sample: Braced patients, aged 10 to 15, Risser <3, Cobb 20°- to 40°, observed to Cobb ≥40° and/or ≥Risser 4 selected from prospective databases. Comparators: Bracing per Bracing in Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis Trial (BrAIST) (TLSO) and Italian Scientific Spine Institute (ISICO) protocol (SPoRT braces with or without SEAS exercises). Baseline characteristics (sex, age, BMI, Risser, Cobb, curve type) and average hours of brace wear/day. Differences in programs (e.g., SEAS, type of brace, weaning protocol) were captured by a variable named "SITE."

OUTCOME

Treatment failure (Cobb ≥40 before Risser 4).

STATISTICS

Comparison of baseline characteristics, analyses of risk factors, treatment components, and outcomes within and between cohorts using logistic regression.

RESULTS

A total of 157 BrAIST and 81 ISICO subjects were included. Cohorts were similar at baseline but differed significantly in terms of average hours of brace wear: 18.31 in the ISICO versus 11.76 in the BrAIST cohort. Twelve percent of the ISICO and 39% of the BrAIST cohort had failed treatment. Age, Risser, Cobb, and a thoracic apex predicted failure in both groups. SITE was related to failure (odds ratio [OR] = 0.19), indicating lower odds of failure with ISICO versus BrAIST approach. With both SITE and wear time in the model, SITE loose significance. In the final model, the adjusted odds of failure were higher in boys (OR = 3.34), and those with lowest BMI (OR = 9.83); the odds increased with the Cobb angle (OR = 1.23), and decreased with age (OR = 0.41) and hours of wear (OR = 0.86).

CONCLUSION

Treatment at the ISICO resulted in a lower failure rate, primarily explained by longer average hours of brace wear.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

3.

Conservative treatment of main thoracic adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: Full-time or nighttime bracing?

PURPOSE

To compare treatment efficacy between the Boston full-time brace and the Providence part-time brace in main thoracic adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS).

METHODS

Patients were treated with either the Boston brace (n = 37) or the Providence brace (n = 40). Inclusion criteria were Risser grade ≤2, major curve between 25° and 40° with the apex of the curve between T7 and T11 vertebrae. Two-year follow-up was available in all patients unless brace treatment had reached endpoint. The primary outcome measure was main curve progression to ≥45°.

RESULTS

Median age was 12.6 years and median treatment length at follow-up was 25 months (interquartile range (IQR): 18-32)) with no difference between the groups (p ≥ 0.116). Initial median main Cobb angle was 29° (IQR: 27-33) and 36° (IQR: 33-38) in the Boston and Providence groups, respectively (p < 0.001). At follow-up, 13 patients (35%) had progressed to ≥45° in the Boston group versus 16 patients (40%) in the Providence group (p = 0.838). Twenty-three patients (62%) had progressed by more than 5° in the Boston group versus 22 patients (55%) in the Providence group (p = 0.685). The secondary thoracolumbar/lumbar curve progressed by more than 5° in 14 (38%) and 18 (45%) in the Boston and Providence groups, respectively (p = 0.548).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite a larger initial curve size in the Providence group, progression of more than 5° or to surgical indication area was similar in the Boston group. Our results indicate that nighttime bracing is a viable alternative to full-time bracing also in main thoracic AIS.

Does Curve Regression Occur During Underarm Bracing in Patients with Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis?

BACKGROUND

Successful brace treatment entails good control of scoliosis with avoidance of surgery. However, achieving curve regression may be an even better radiological result than prevention of curve progression for patients with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Vertebral remodeling may occur with well-fitted braces. Better in-brace curve correction may influence the likelihood of vertebral remodeling and the chance of curve regression. Only a few reports have evaluated curve regression with brace treatment, and the factors associated with these events are unknown.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

(1) What changes in curvature are observed with brace treatment for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis? (2) What factors are associated with curve improvement? (3) What factors are associated with curve deterioration? (4) Is curve regression associated with improvements in patient-reported objective outcome scores?

METHODS

Between September 2008 and December 2013, 666 patients with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis underwent underarm brace treatment and were followed until skeletal maturity at 18 years old. Among these patients, 80 were excluded because of early discontinuation of brace treatment (n = 66) and loss to follow-up (n = 14). Hence, 586 patients were included in this study, with a mean brace-wear duration of 3.8 ± 1.5 years and post-weaning follow-up duration of 2.0 ± 1.1 years. The mean age at baseline was 12.6 ± 1.2 years. Most patients were female (87%, 507 of 586) and up to 53% (267 of 507) of females were post-menarche. Bracing outcomes were based on changes in the Cobb angle measured out of brace. These included curve regression, as indicated by at least a 5° reduction in the Cobb angle, curve progression, as indicated by at least a 5° increase in the Cobb angle, and unchanged, as indicated by a change in the Cobb angle of less than 5°. We studied the pre-brace and supine Cobb angles, curve flexibility (pre-brace Cobb angle - supine Cobb angle / pre-brace Cobb angle x 100%), correction rate (pre-brace Cobb angle - in-brace Cobb angle / pre-brace Cobb angle x 100%), location of apical vertebrae, apical ratio (convex vertebral height/concave vertebral height), change in the major curve Cobb angle, and apical ratio post-bracing. The refined 22-item Scoliosis Research Society questionnaire was used for patient-reported outcomes and is composed of five domains (function, pain, appearance, mental health and satisfaction with treatment). Its minimum clinically important difference, based on a scale from 0 to 5, has been quoted as 0.2 for pain, 0.08 for activity and 0.98 for appearance domains. Mental health has no quoted minimum clinically important difference for the adolescent idiopathic scoliosis population. Satisfaction with treatment is described based on improvement or deterioration in domain scores. Intergroup differences between bracing outcomes were evaluated with the Kruskal Wallis test. Univariate analyses of bracing outcomes were performed with a point-biserial correlation coefficient for continuous variables and Pearson's chi-square test for categorical variables. Multivariate logistic regression models were created for improved and deteriorated outcomes. P values < 0.05 were considered significant.

RESULTS

In all, 17% of patients (98 of 586) had an improved angle and 40% of patients (234 of 586) had curve deterioration. In patients who improved, the mean reduction in the Cobb angle was 9 ± 4°, while in patients who deteriorated, the mean increase in the Cobb angle was 15 ± 9°, and this was maintained at the latest post-brace weaning follow-up. Despite a trend for patients with curve regression to have higher baseline flexibility and correction rate, after controlling for age, Risser staging, radius and ulnar grading, and Sanders staging, we found no clinically important differences with increased correction rate or flexibility. We did find that improvement in the Cobb angle after bracing was associated with reduced apical ratio (odds ratio [OR] 0.84 [95% CI 0.80 to 0.87]; p < 0.001). Curve progression was associated with younger age (OR 0.71 [95% CI 0.55 to 0.91]; p = 0.008), pre-menarche status (OR 2.46 [95% CI 1.31 to 4.62]; p = 0.005), and increased apical ratio (OR 1.24 [95% CI 1.19 to 1.30]; p < 0.001) but no clinically important differences were observed with less flexible curves and reduced correction rate. Improvements in scores of the refined 22-item Scoliosis Research Society domains of function (mean difference on a scale from 0 to 5: 0.2; p = 0.001 versus 0.1; p < 0.001) and pain (mean difference on a scale from 0 to 5: 0.2; p = 0.020 versus 0.0; p = 0.853) were greater in the post-brace improvement group than in the deterioration group and fulfilled the minimum clinically important difference threshold. The appearance domain did not fulfill the minimum clinically important difference. Satisfaction with treatment domain score minimally improved with the curve regression group (mean difference on a scale from 0 to 5: 0.2) but deteriorated in the curve progression group (mean difference on a scale from 0 to 5: -0.4).

CONCLUSIONS

Curve regression occurs after underarm bracing and is associated with superior patient-reported outcome scores. This possible change in Cobb angle should be explained to patients before and during bracing. Whether this may help improve patients' duration of brace-wear should be addressed in future studies. Patients with well-fitting braces may experience curve improvement and possible vertebral remodeling. Those braced at a younger age and with increased vertebral wedging are more likely to have curve progression.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, therapeutic study.

Bracing In The Treatment Of Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis: Evidence To Date

Brace effectiveness for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis was controversial until recent studies provided high quality of evidence that bracing can decrease likelihood of progression and need for operative treatment. Very low evidence exists regarding bracing over 40^ο and adult degenerative scoliosis. Initial in-brace correction and compliance seem to be the most important predictive factors for successful treatment outcome. However, the amount of correction and adherence to wearing hours have not been established yet. Moderate evidence suggests that thoracic and double curves, and curves over 30^ο at an early growth stage have more risk for failure. High and low body mass index scores are also associated with low successful rates. CAD/CAM braces have shown better initial correction and are more comfortable than conventional plaster cast braces. For a curve at high risk of progression, rigid and day-time braces are significantly more effective than soft or night-time braces. No safe conclusion on effectiveness can be drawn while comparing symmetrical and asymmetrical brace designs. The addition of physiotherapeutic scoliosis-specific exercises in brace treatment can provide better outcomes and is recommended, when possible. Despite the growing evidence for brace effectiveness, there is still an imperative need for future high methodological quality studies to be conducted.