SOSORT Award Winner 2015: A multicentre study comparing the SPoRT and ART braces effectiveness according to the SOSORT-SRS recommendations

Background: Data comparing different braces for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) are scant. The SRS criteria represent some guidelines for comparing results from different studies, but controlled studies are much more reliable. Recently, super-rigid braces have been introduced in clinical practice with the aim of replacing Risser and EDF casts. The aim of the present study is to compare the short-term radiographic results of two super-rigid braces, the ART and the SPORT (Sforzesco) brace. Methods: A group of consecutive patients with Cobb >40°, Risser 0-4, age >10 treated with the ART brace for 6 months were matched with a group of similar patients taken from a prospective database of patients treated with the Sforzesco brace. Patients were matched according to Cobb severity, pattern and localization of the curve. All patients had a full-time brace prescription (23-24 hours per day) and an indication to perform scoliosis-specific exercises and were assessed radiographically both immediately in the brace and after 6 months of treatment out of brace. Curves were analyzed according to the pattern and localization taking into consideration both the in-brace correction and the 6-month out-of-brace results. Statistical analysis: t-test, ANOVA, linear regression, alpha set at 0.05. Results: Twenty-six patients were included in the ART brace group, and 26 in the Sforzesco brace group. At baseline, no differences were noted for gender (3 males for each group), age (14.1 ± 0.3 for ART vs 13.9 ± 0.3 for Sforzesco), ATR (11.8 ± 3.2 vs 11.5 ± 4.2 for thoracic curves and 7.8 ± 4.0 vs 7.1 ± 6.1 for lumbar/thoracolumbar), Cobb angle (44.8 ± 2 vs 45.5 ± 2 for thoracic; 43.8 ± 2 vs 46.0 ± 2 for lumbar/thoracolumbar) or Risser sign (median 2 for both groups). The in-brace correction was slightly better for the ART brace, but didn't reach statistical significance (24.3 ± 8.5 vs 28.0 ± 6.8 for thoracic; 23.7 ± 10.4 vs 29.9 ± 4.2 for lumbar/thoracolumbar). At 6 months, results were similar both for thoracic (34.4 ± 10.4 vs34.8 ± 6.8) and for lumbar/thoracolumbar (32.8 ± 10.8 vs 36.6 ± 5.2). Also, with regard to the pattern, results were similar for double major and for thoracic, while there were not enough data for single lumbar to make a comparison. No differences for ATR were found (7.8 ± 3.2 vs 8.6 ± 2.9 for thoracic; 4.3 ± 3.4 vs 4.3 ± 3.7 for lumbar/thoracolumbar). Conclusion: These two super-rigid braces showed similar short-term results, despite the better in-brace correction for lumbar curves shown by the ART brace. According to our data, the asymmetric design showed results similar to the symmetric one. After these preliminary data, further studies are needed to check end growth results and the impact of compliance, rigidity of curve, exercise and assessing quality of life. © 2015 Zaina et al

Actual evidence in the medical approach to adolescents with idiopathic scoliosis

Idiopathic scoliosis (IS) is a three-dimensional deformity of the spine and trunk. The most common form involve adolescents. The prevalence is 2-3% of the population, with 1 out of 6 patients requiring treatment of which 25% progress to surgery. Physical and rehabilitation medicine (PRM) plays a primary role in the so-called conservative treatment of adolescents with IS, since all the therapeutic tools used (exercises and braces) fall into the PRM domain. According to a Cochrane systematic review there is evidence in favor of bracing, even if it is of low quality. Recently, a controlled prospective trial including a randomised arm gave more strength to this conclusion. Another Cochrane review shows that there is evidence in favor of exercises as an adjunctive treatment, but of low quality. Three meta-analysis have been published on bracing: one shows that bracing does not reduce surgery rates, but studies with bracing plus exercises were not included and had the highest effectiveness; another shows that full time is better than part-time bracing; the last focuses on observational studies following the Scoliosis Research Society (SRS) criteria and shows that not all full time rigid bracing are the same: some have the highest effectiveness, others have less than elastic and nighttime bracing. Two very important RCTs failed in recruitment, showing that in the field of bracing for scoliosis RCTs are not accepted by the patients. Consensuses by the international Society on Scoliosis Orthopedic and Rehabilitation Treatment (SOSORT) show that there is no agreement among experts either on the best braces or on their biomechanical action, and that compliance is a matter of clinical more than patients' behavior (there is strong agreement on the management criteria to achieve best results with bracing). A systematic review of all the existing studies shows effectiveness of exercises, and that auto-correction is their main goal. A systematic review shows that there are no studies on manual treatment. The SOSORT Guidelines offer the actual standard of conservative care

Research quality in scoliosis conservative treatment: State of the art

The publication of research in the field of conservative treatment of scoliosis is increasing after a long period of progressive decline. In 2014, three high quality and scientifically sound papers gave new strength to the conservative scoliosis approach. The efficacy of treatment over observation was demonstrated by two RCTs for bracing, and one for scoliosis-specific exercises provided by a physical therapist. It is difficult to design strong studies in this field due to the long time needed for follow up and the challenge of recruiting patients and families willing to be involved in the decision process. Nevertheless, the main methodological errors are not related to the study design but rather on the way it is performed, which very frequently affects the reliability of results. The most common errors are: selection bias, with many studies including functional rather than a true structural scoliosis; inappropriate outcome measures, utilizing parameters not related to scoliosis progression or quality of life; inappropriate follow up, reporting only immediate results and not addressing end of growth results; an incorrect interpretation of findings, with an overestimation of results; and missing the evaluation of skeletal maturity, without which results cannot be considered stable. Being aware of these errors is extremely important both for authors and for readers in order to avoid questionable practices based on inconclusive studies that could harm patients. © 2015 Zaina et al

Bracing for scoliosis in 2014: state of the art.

Bracing is currently the primary method for treating moderate idiopathic scoliosis (IS) during the developmental phase of growth. Following a lengthy debate, during which researchers and authors questioned the role of bracing in the treatment of IS due to inconsistent evidence, the Bracing in Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis Trial study have provided a high level of evidence to the value of bracing and may have convinced most of those who were skeptic. However, although some guidelines have been published, there remains no standard for constructing scoliosis orthoses and no standard treatment protocol. The Scoliosis Research Society criteria were established to provide a framework by which to research bracing and adolescent idiopathic scoliosis, and the Society on Scoliosis Orthopedic and Rehabilitation Treatment criteria were published to guarantee a minimum level of expertise for MDs and CPOs involved in the brace treatment. However, very few contemporary papers follow both sets of criteria, and the extensive variety of braces makes it difficult to determine if one is superior to another. The aim of this paper is to provide an overview of state-of-the-art brace treatment, highlighting commonly used braces and their history, biomechanical concept, and results, as reported in published literature. Specific focus is placed on European (i.e., Chêneau and derivatives, Dynamic Derotating, Lyon, PASB, Sforzesco, TLI, TriaC) and North American (i.e. Boston, Charleston, Milwaukee, Providence, Rosenberger, SpineCor, Wilmington) designs. Details about different building techniques are also reported, along with recently developed tools that are designed to monitor compliance

Bracing for scoliosis in 2014: state of the art

Bracing is currently the primary method for treating moderate idiopathic scoliosis (IS) during the developmental phase of growth. Following a lengthy debate, during which researchers and authors questioned the role of bracing in the treatment of IS due to inconsistent evidence, the Bracing in Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis Trial study have provided a high level of evidence to the value of bracing and may have convinced most of those who were skeptic. However, although some guidelines have been published, there remains no standard for constructing scoliosis orthoses and no standard treatment protocol. The Scoliosis Research Society criteria were established to provide a framework by which to research bracing and adolescent idiopathic scoliosis, and the Society on Scoliosis Orthopedic and Rehabilitation Treatment criteria were published to guarantee a minimum level of expertise for MDs and CPOs involved in the brace treatment. However, very few contemporary papers follow both sets of criteria, and the extensive variety of braces makes it difficult to determine if one is superior to another. The aim of this paper is to provide an overview of state-of-the-art brace treatment, highlighting commonly used braces and their history, biomechanical concept, and results, as reported in published literature. Specific focus is placed on European (i.e., Ch\ueaneau and derivatives, Dynamic Derotating, Lyon, PASB, Sforzesco, TLI, TriaC) and North American (i.e. Boston, Charleston, Milwaukee, Providence, Rosenberger, SpineCor, Wilmington) designs. Details about different building techniques are also reported, along with recently developed tools that are designed to monitor compliance