No abstract

BackgroundIn respect to the prescribed regimen and the regular daily pattern, investigate how short-term results are affected by wear time adherence in terms of hours per day.MethodsThis is a case-control study. The setting is outpatient clinic. There were 168 subjects, all of whom met the inclusion criteria: adolescent idiopathic scoliosis and Sforzesco brace prescription of 18 to 23 h/day. The minimum period of follow-up was 4 months, and the maximum was 6 months, which is the average time passing between the Thermobrace (TB) adoption and out-of-brace X-ray before treatment. The brace wear adherence rate, calculated from the ratio of brace wear time with the prescription, was considered in combination with the daily pattern compliance, classified as consistent (104 patients) or inconsistent according to the abnormal distribution of Thermobrace data. The short-term results were finally explored.ResultsConsistent brace wear is associated with a higher probability of improvement in curve magnitude (OR 1.96 CI 95% 1.22–3.14 chi-square 7.78 p = 0.0053). Inconsistent brace wear is more likely to progress (OR 0.14 CI 95% 0.30–0.75 chi-square 10.13 p = 0.0015). Results from the logistic regression show that the most influencing factor for improvement is Cobb degrees at the start.ConclusionsIn clinical everyday activity, patients must be encouraged to consistently follow their brace wear prescription, because this attitude is clearly associated with a higher probability of improvement.

Scoliosis is a complex three dimensional (3D) deformity: the current lack of a 3D classification could hide something fundamental for scoliosis prognosis and treatment. A clear picture of the actually existing 3D classifications lacks. The aim of this systematic review was to identify all the 3D classification systems proposed until now in the literature with the aim to identify similarities and differences mainly in a clinical perspective.After a MEDLINE Data Base review, done in November 2013 using the search terms “Scoliosis/classification” [Mesh] and “scoliosis/classification and Imaging, three dimensional” [Mesh], 8 papers were included with a total of 1164 scoliosis patients, 23 hyperkyphosis and 25 controls, aged between 8 and 20 years, with curves from 10° to 81° Cobb, and various curve patterns. Six studies looked at the whole 3D spine and found classificatory parameters according to planes, angles and rotations, including: Plane of Maximal Curvature (PMC), Best Fit Plane, Cobb angles in bodily plane and PMC, Axial rotation of the apical vertebra and of the PMC, and geometric 3D torsion. Two studies used the regional (spinal) Top View of the spine and found classificatory parameters according to its geometrical properties (area, direction and barycenter) including: Ratio of the frontal and the sagittal size, Phase, Directions (total, thoracic and lumbar), and Shift. It was possible to find similarities among 10 out of the 16 the sub-groups identified by different authors with different methods in different populations.In summation, the state of the art of 3D classification systems include 8 studies which showed some comparability, even though of low level. The most useful one in clinical everyday practice, is far from being defined. More than 20 years passed since the definition of the third dimension of the scoliosis deformity, now the time has come for clinicians and bioengineers to start some real clinical application, and develop means to make this approach an everyday tool.

Combining evidence-based medicine and shared decision making, current guidelines support an evidence-based personalised approach (EBPA) for idiopathic scoliosis in adolescents (AIS). EBPA is considered important for adolescents’ compliance, which is particularly difficult in AIS. Benchmarking to existing Randomised Controlled Trials (RCTs) as paradigms of single treatments, we aimed to check the effectiveness and burden of care of an EBPA in high-risk AIS. This study’s design features a retrospective observation of a prospective database including 25,361 spinal deformity patients < 18 years of age. Participants consisted of 1938 AIS, 11–45° Cobb, Risser stage 0–2, who were studied until the end of growth. EBPA included therapies classified for burdensomeness according to current guidelines. Using the same inclusion criteria of the RCTs on exercises, plastic, and elastic bracing, out of the 1938 included, we benchmarked 590, 687, and 884 participants, respectively. We checked clinically significant results and burden of care, calculating Relative Risk of success (RR) and Number Needed to Treat (NNT) for efficacy (EA) and intent-to-treat analyses. At the end of growth, 19% of EBPA participants progressed, while 33% improved. EBPA showed 2.0 (1.7–2.5) and 2.9 (1.7–4.9) RR of success versus Weinstein and Coillard’s studies control groups, respectively. Benchmarked to plastic or elastic bracing, EBPA had 1.4 (1.2–1.5) and 1.7 (1.2–2.5) RR of success, respectively. The EBPA treatment burden was greater than RCTs in 48% of patients, and reduced for 24% and 42% versus plastic and elastic bracing, respectively. EBPA showed to be from 40% to 70% more effective than benchmarked individual treatments, with low NNT. The burden of treatment was frequently reduced, but it had to be increased even more frequently.

Purpose In-brace radiograph of adolescents with idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) has been shown to reflect brace efficacy and the possibility of achieving curve correction. Conversely, the first out-of-brace radiograph could demonstrate the patient’s ability to maintain the correction. We aimed to determine which of the two radiographs is the best predictor of the Cobb angle at the end of treatment (final radiograph). Design Retrospective cohort study of a prospective dataset. Methods The population was selected based on the following inclusion criteria: AIS, age 10–18 years; Risser score 0–2; Cobb angle 25–40°; brace treatment; availability of all radiographs. Statistics: Pearson correlations provide a first exploration of data. The univariate and multivariate logistic regression model tested the predictors. Finally ROC curve provided a check of model accuracy. Results A total of 131 patients were included (mean age 13.0 ± 1.3, Cobb angle 33.2 ± 5.5°; 78% females). At the end of treatment, 56% had stabilised, 9% had progressed, and 44% had improved. The difference between the in-brace and final radiographs was 8.0 ± 6.0°, while the difference between the first out-of-brace and final radiographs was 1.8 ± 5.2°. The best predictor of final outcome was the first out-of-brace radiograph (0.80), compared to in-brace (0.68) and baseline (0.59) radiographs. The best cut-offs to predict avoidance of progression were 30% and 10% of the correction rates for the in-brace and first out-of-brace radiographs, respectively. Conclusion The first out-of-brace radiograph predicts end results better than the in-brace radiograph. It offers an excellent clinical reference for clinicians and patients. The first out-of-brace radiograph should be considered an essential element of future predictive models. Level of Evidence 1 Diagnostic: individual cross-sectional studies with consistently applied reference standard and blinding.