Advertisement

Der Orthopäde

, Volume 38, Issue 2, pp 151–158 | Cite as

Die Compliance als Prognosefaktor bei der konservativen Behandlung idiopathischer Skoliosen

  • J. Seifert
  • A. Selle
  • C. Flieger
  • K.P. Günther
Leitthema

Zusammenfassung

Hintergrund

Ziel der Untersuchung war die Analyse des Einflusses der Korsettcompliance auf das Behandlungsergebnis bei idiopathischer Skoliose.

Material und Methode

Bei 90 Jugendlichen wurde mit Dresdner Skolioseorthese (DSO) ganztags behandelt. Nach einem Beobachtungszeitraum von im Mittel 4,3 Jahren erfolgte die retrospektive Analyse der Compliance mit Fragebogen und Gespräch.

Ergebnisse

Die Primärkorrektur in Orthese betrug lumbal 36% und thorakal 25%. 59,4% der Patienten waren compliant und hatten damit eine Erfolgsrate von 89% (konstanter Winkel nach Cobb bzw. Verbesserung). Beim Zusammentreffen von Compliance und einer Primärkorrektur von >30% erreichten thorakale Skoliosen eine Korrektur um 8,3° und lumbale Skoliosen um 12,4°. In der Noncompliancegruppe wurden bei 11 von insgesamt 39 Patienten Operationsindikationen gestellt, während dies in der Compliancegruppe nur bei 4 von 57 Patienten der Fall war.

Schlussfolgerung

Die Compliance ist neben der Primärkorrektur der Orthese der entscheidende prädiktive Faktor der Korsettbehandlung idiopathischer Skoliosen. Es erhebt sich die Frage nach psychologischen Einflussfaktoren auf die Compliance.

Schlüsselwörter

Skoliose Korsett Compliance Psychologischer Einfluss 

Compliance as a prognostic factor in the treatment of idiopathic scoliosis

Abstract

Background

The purpose of this study was to assess the compliance of brace treatment and the correlation with outcomes in patients with idiopathic scoliosis.

Methods

Ninety adolescent patients completed treatment with the Dresden scoliosis orthosis. After a mean follow-up time of 4.3 years, their level of compliance was retrospectively assessed and correlated with the radiographic results.

Results

The amount of primary correction was 36% in the lumbar spine and 25% in the thoracic spine. Of the patients, 59.4% were compliant (daily duration of brace treatment >20 h). The success rate in this group (improved or constant Cobb angles during therapy) was 89%. With good compliance and primary correction of more than 30%, the average Cobb angle at follow-up had improved by 8.3° in the thoracic spine and by 12.4° in the lumbar spine compared with the initial Cobb angle. Eleven of 39 patients in the noncompliant group but only four of 57 compliant patients underwent surgery.

Conclusion

Compliance with orthosis therapy and the amount of primary correction are together the most important factors for predicting the final outcome of brace treatment in idiopathic scoliosis. Influencing factors on compliance must be further analyzed.

Keywords

Scoliosis Brace Compliance Psychological influence 

Notes

Interessenkonflikt

Der korrespondierende Autor gibt an, dass kein Interessenkonflikt besteht.

Literatur

  1. 1.
    Allington NJ, Bowen JR (1996) Adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: Treatment with the Wilmington brace. J Bone Joint Surg Am 78 7: 1056–1061Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Andrews G, MacEwen GD (1989) Idiopathic scoliosis: An 11-year follow-up study of the role of the Milwaukee brace in curve control and trunco-pelvic alignment. Orthopedics 12(6): 809–816PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Apter A, Morein G, Munitz H et al (1978) The psychosocial sequelae of the Milwaukee brace in adolescent girls. Clin Orthop Relat Res 131: 156–159PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bassett GS, Bunnell WP, MacEwen GD (1986) Treatment of idiopathic scoliosis withe the Wilmington brace. Results in patients withe a twenty to thirty-nine-degree curve. J Bone Joint Surg Am 68(4): 602–605PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Boeckel T, Mellerowicz H, Neff G (1995) Mittel- und Langzeitergebnisse der Boston-Brace-Behandlung von idiopathischen Skoliosen. Orthop Prax 1: 8–12Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bullmann V, Halm HF, Lerner T et al (2004) Prospektive untersuchung zur korsettbehandlung bei idiopathischen Skoliosen. Z Orthop 142: 403–409PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bunnell WP (1988) The natural history of idiopathic scoliosis. Clin Orthop Res 229: 20–25Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bunell WP (1986) The natural history of idiopathic scoliosis befor skeletal maturity. Spine 11: 773–776CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Carr WA, Moe JH, Winter RB, Lonstein JE (1980) Treatment of idiopathic scoliosis in the Milwaukee brace. J Bone Joint Surg Am 62(4): 599–612PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    DiRaimondo CV, Green NE (1988) Brace-wear compliance in patients with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. J Pediatr Orthop 8: 143–146PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Dolan LA, Weinstein SL (2007) Surgical rates after observation and bracing for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Spine 30: 91–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Edelmann P(1992) Brace treatment in idiopathic scoliosis. Acta Orthop Belg 58: 85–90PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Fernandez-Felbiberti FA, Flynn J, Ramirez N et al (1995) Effectivnes of TLSO bracing in the conservative treatment of idiopathic scoliosis. J Pediatr Orthop 15: 176–181Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Focarile FA, Bonaldi A, Giarolo MA et al (1991) Effectivness of nonsurgical treatment for idiopathic scoliosis. Overview of available evidence. Spine 16: 395–401PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hanks GA, Zimmer B, Nogi J (1988) TLSO-treatment of idiopathic scoliosis. An analysis of the Wilmington jacket. Spine 13: 626–629PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Howard A, Wright JG, Hedden D (1998) A comparative study of TLSO, Charleston and Milwaukee braces for idiopathic scoliosis. Spine 23: 2404–2411PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Karbowski A, Hopf C, Heine J (1995) Endergebnisse der konservativen Behandlung der Skoliose: Ein Vergleich zwischen Milwaukee- und Cheneau-Korsett. Orthop Prax 12:13–17Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Katz DE, Richards BS, Browne RH, Herring JA (1997) A comparison between the Boston and the Charleston bending brace in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Spine 22: 1302–1312PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Katz DE, Durrani AA (2001) Factors that influence outcome in bracing large curves in patients with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Spine 26: 2354–2361PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Landauer F, Wimmer C, Behensky H (2003) Estimating the final outcome of brace treatment for idiopathic thoracic scoliosis at 6 month follow-up. PediatricRehabilitation 6: 201–207Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lonstein JE, Carlson M (1988) The prediction of curve progression in untreated idiopathic scoliosis during growth. JBJS 66-A9/7:1061–1071Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Lonstein JE, Winter RB (1994) The milwaukee brace for the treatment of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. A rewiew of one thausand and twenty patients. J Bone Joint Surg Am 76(8): 1207–1221PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Matussek J, Mellerowicz H, Klöckner C et al (2000) Zwei- und dreidimensionale Korrektur von Skoliosen durch Korsettbehandlung. Orthopade 29: 490–499PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Matsunaga S, Hayashi K, Naruo T et al (2005) Psychologic management of brace therapy for patients with idiopathic scoliosis. Spine 30: 547–550PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    McCollough NC 3rd, Schultz M, Javech N, Latta L (1981) Miami TLSO in the management of scoliosis. Preliminary results in 100 cases. J Pediatr Orthop 1: 141–152PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Nachemson AL, Peterson LE (1995) Scoliosis research society:effectivness of treatment with a brace in girls who have adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 78(4): 557–567Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Noonan KJ, Weinstein SL, Jacobson WC, Dolan LA (1996) Use of the milwaukee brace for progressive idiopathic scoliosis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 78: 557–567PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Olafson Y, Saraste H, Söderlund V, Hoffsten M (1995) Boston brace in the treatment of idiopathic scoliosis. J Pediatr Orthop 15: 324–327Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Rahman T, Bowen JR, Takemitsu M, Scott C (2005) The association between brace compliance and outcome for patients with idiopathic scoliosis. J Pediatr Orthop 25: 420–422PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Richards BS, Bernstein RM, D‘Amato CR, Thompson GH (2005) Standardization of criteria for adolescent Idiopathic scoliosis brace studies. Spine 30: 2068–2075PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Robinson CM, McMaster MJ (1996) Juvenile idiopathic scoliosis. Curve patterns and prognosis in one hundred and nine patients. J Bone Joint Surg Am 78(8): 1140–1148PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Schramm M von, Hirschfelder H, Ott E (1998) Effektivität der CBW-Orthese zur konservativen Behandlung idiopathischer Skoliosen. Orthop Prax 34Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Siebel T, Eysel PN (1996) Idiopathische Skoliose – Therapie mit dem cheneau-korsett. Fortschr Med 114: 287–290PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Uden A, Willner S, Petterson H (1982) Initial correction with Boston thoracic brace. Acta Orthop Scand 53: 907–911PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Upadhyay SS, Nelson IW, Ho EK et al (1995) New prognostic factors to predict the final outcome of brace treatment in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Spine 20: 537–545PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Weinstein SL (1989) Adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Prevalence and natural history.Orthopade 18: 74–86PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Weinstein SL (1986) Idiopathic scoliosis. Natural history. Spine 11: 780–783PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Yrjönen T, Ylikoski M, Schlenzka D, Poussa M (2007) Results of brace treatment of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis in boys compared with girls: a retrospective study of 102 patients with the Boston brace. Eur Spine J 16: 393–397PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Medizin Verlag 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. Seifert
    • 1
  • A. Selle
    • 2
  • C. Flieger
    • 3
  • K.P. Günther
    • 1
  1. 1.Wirbelsäulenbereich, Klinik für OrthopädieUniversitätsklinikum Carl Gustav Carus der TU Dresden DresdenDeutschland
  2. 2.OTMOrthopädie- und Rehatechnik Dresden GmbHDresdenDeutschland
  3. 3.Asklepios Orthopädische KlinikHohwaldDeutschland

Personalised recommendations