Advertisement

European Spine Journal

, Volume 25, Issue 10, pp 3088–3094 | Cite as

Rib-vertebral angle measurements predict brace treatment outcome in Risser grade 0 and premenarchal girls with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis

  • Xu Sun
  • Qi Ding
  • Shifu Sha
  • Saihu Mao
  • Feng Zhu
  • Zezhang Zhu
  • Bangping Qian
  • Bin Wang
  • Jack C. Y. Cheng
  • Yong QiuEmail author
Original Article

Abstract

Purpose

To investigate the predictive role of rib-vertebral angle (RVA) measurements in early adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) girls with right thoracic curve during brace treatment.

Methods

Early AIS (premenarchal and Risser 0) girls who had undergone brace treatment and had been followed regularly were recruited to this study. According to the bracing outcome, they were divided into Group A (non-progressed) and Group B (curve worsened over six degrees or indicated for surgery).

Results

Totally 48 girls were included. There were 30 and 18 patients in Groups A and B, respectively. Ratio of curve progression was significantly higher in patients with initial RVA difference (RVAD) ≥20° versus <20°, or convex RVA (CRVA) ≤68° versus >68°. From brace initiation to the latest follow-up, CRVA was found to be significantly higher in Group A versus Group B (P < 0.05), while RVAD was higher in Group B versus Group A (P < 0.05). Serial measurements revealed an increasing trend for RVAD (from 19 ± 10° to 29 ± 8°) yet a decreasing trend for CRVA (from 68 ± 6° to 60 ± 7°) in Group B, but both RVAD and CRVA were found to remain stable in Group A during the follow-up period. Association analyses showed that both RVAD ≥20° and CRVA ≤68° at brace initiation and at each follow-up were significantly associated with curve progression.

Conclusions

The initial RVAD ≥20° and CRVA ≤68° serve as valid factors in predicting the risk of curve progression during bracing in early AIS. Constant watch on RVAD and CRVA can help to more accurately predict the effectiveness of bracing in these patients.

Keywords

Adolescent idiopathic scoliosis Rib-vertebral angle difference Convex rib-vertebral angle Brace treatment Curve progression 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank Zhonghui Chen, Xi Chen, and Changzhi Du for their assistance in data analyses.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

None.

Ethical approval

This study was performed under the approval from the Ethics Committee of our hospital.

Sources of support

This work was supported by the Development Project of Nanjing Science and Technology Commission and Foundation (Grant No. 201402028), the Key Project of Medical Science and Technology Development Foundation, Nanjing Department of Health (Grant No. YKK14053), and the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 81301603).

References

  1. 1.
    Lonstein JE, Winter RB (1994) The Milwaukee brace for the treatment of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. A review of one thousand and twenty patients. J Bone Joint Surg Am 76:1207–1221PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Nachemson AL, Peterson LE (1995) Effectiveness of treatment with a brace in girls who have adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. A prospective, controlled study based on data from the Brace Study of the Scoliosis Research Society. J Bone Joint Surg Am 77:815–822PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Guo J, Lam TP, Wong MS, Ng BK, Lee KM, Liu KL, Hung LH, Lau AH, Sin SW, Kwok WK, Yu FW, Qiu Y, Cheng JC (2014) A prospective randomized controlled study on the treatment outcome of SpineCor brace versus rigid brace for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis with follow-up according to the SRS standardized criteria. Eur Spine J 23:2650–2657CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Vijvermans V, Fabry G, Nijs J (2004) Factors determining the final outcome of treatment of idiopathic scoliosis with the Boston brace: a longitudinal study. J Pediatric Orthop B 13:143–149Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Busscher I, Gerver WJ, Kingma I, Wapstra FH, Verkerke GJ, Veldhuizen AG (2011) The growth of different body length dimensions is not predictive for the peak growth velocity of sitting height in the individual child. Eur Spine J 20:791–797CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Busscher I, Kingma I, de Bruin R, Wapstra FH, Verkerke GJ, Veldhuizen AG (2012) Predicting the peak growth velocity in the individual child: validation of a new growth model. Eur Spine J 21:71–76CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Katz DE, Durrani AA (2001) Factors that influence outcome in bracing large curves in patients with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 26:2354–2361CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Upadhyay SS, Nelson IW, Ho EK, Hsu LC, Leong JC (1995) New prognostic factors to predict the final outcome of brace treatment in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 20:537–545CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Zhang Y, Yang Y, Dang X, Zhao L, Ren J, Zhang L, Sun J (2015) Factors relating to curve progression in female patients with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis treated with a brace. Eur Spine J 24:244–248CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Karol LA (2001) Effectiveness of bracing in male patients with idiopathic scoliosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 26:2001–2005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Guo J, Liu Z, Lv F, Zhu Z, Qian B, Zhang X, Lin X, Sun X, Qiu Y (2012) Pelvic tilt and trunk inclination: new predictive factors in curve progression during the Milwaukee bracing for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Eur Spine J 21:2050–2058CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Sun X, Wu T, Liu Z, Zhu Z, Qian B, Zhu F, Ma W, Yu Y, Wang B, Qiu Y (2013) Osteopenia predicts curve progression of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis in girls treated with brace treatment. J Pediatric Orthop 33:366–371CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Wiemann JM, Shah SA, Price CT (2014) Nighttime bracing versus observation for early adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. J Pediatric Orthop 34:603–606Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Mehta MH (1972) The rib-vertebra angle in the early diagnosis between resolving and progressive infantile scoliosis. J Bone Joint Surg Br 54:230–243PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kristmundsdottir F, Burwell RG, James JI (1985) The rib-vertebra angles on the convexity and concavity of the spinal curve in infantile idiopathic scoliosis. Clin Orthop Relat Res 201:205–209PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Tolo VT, Gillespie R (1978) The characteristics of juvenile idiopathic scoliosis and results of its treatment. J Bone Joint Surg Br 60:181–188PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Canavese F, Holveck J, De Coulon G, Kaelin A (2011) Analysis of concave and convex rib-vertebral angle, angle difference, and angle ratio in patients with lenke type 1 main thoracic adolescent idiopathic scoliosis treated by observation, bracing or posterior fusion, and instrumentation. J Spinal Disord Tech 24:506–513PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Canavese F, Turcot K, Holveck J, Farhoumand AD, Kaelin A (2011) Changes of concave and convex rib-vertebral angle, angle difference and angle ratio in patients with right thoracic adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Eur Spine J 20:129–134CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Modi HN, Suh SW, Song HR, Yang JH, Ting C, Hazra S (2009) Drooping of apical convex rib-vertebral angle in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis of more than 40 degrees: a prognostic factor for progression. J Spinal Disord Tech 22:367–371CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Qiu Y, Sun X, Cheng JC, Zhu F, Li W, Zhu Z, Wang B, Yu Y (2008) Bone mineral accrual in osteopenic and non-osteopenic girls with idiopathic scoliosis during bracing treatment. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 33:1682–1689CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Richards BS, Bernstein RM, D’Amato CR, Thompson GH (2005) Standardization of criteria for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis brace studies: SRS Committee on Bracing and Nonoperative Management. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 30:2068–2075; discussion 2076–2067Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Schiller JR, Thakur NA, Eberson CP (2010) Brace management in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Clin Orthop Relat Res 468:670–678CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Rowe DE, Bernstein SM, Riddick MF, Adler F, Emans JB, Gardner-Bonneau D (1997) A meta-analysis of the efficacy of non-operative treatments for idiopathic scoliosis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 79:664–674PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Lonstein JE, Carlson JM (1984) The prediction of curve progression in untreated idiopathic scoliosis during growth. J Bone Joint Surg Am 66:1061–1071PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Bunnell WP (1988) The natural history of idiopathic scoliosis. Clin Orthop Relat Res 229:20–25PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Hanks GA, Zimmer B, Nogi J (1988) TLSO treatment of idiopathic scoliosis. An analysis of the Wilmington jacket. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 13:626–629CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Soucacos PN, Zacharis K, Soultanis K, Gelalis J, Xenakis T, Beris AE (2000) Risk factors for idiopathic scoliosis: review of a 6 year prospective study. Orthopedics 23:833–838PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Diedrich O, von Strempel A, Schloz M, Schmitt O, Kraft CN (2002) Long-term observation and management of resolving infantile idiopathic scoliosis a 25 year follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Br 84:1030–1035CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Sevastik B, Xiong B, Sevastik J, Lindgren U, Willers U (1997) Rib-vertebral angle asymmetry in idiopathic, neuromuscular and experimentally induced scoliosis. Eur Spine J 6:84–88CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    McAlindon RJ, Kruse RW (1997) Measurement of rib vertebral angle difference. Intraobserver error and interobserver variation. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 22:198–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Cheung KM, Cheng EY, Chan SC, Yeung KW, Luk KD (2007) Outcome assessment of bracing in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis by the use of the SRS-22 questionnaire. Int Orthop 31:507–511CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Sun X, Liu WJ, Xu LL, Ding Q, Mao SH, Qian BP, Zhu ZZ, Qiu Y (2013) Does brace treatment impact upon the flexibility and the correctability of idiopathic scoliosis in adolescents? Eur Spine J 22:268–273CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Xu Sun
    • 1
    • 4
  • Qi Ding
    • 2
  • Shifu Sha
    • 1
  • Saihu Mao
    • 1
  • Feng Zhu
    • 1
    • 4
  • Zezhang Zhu
    • 1
    • 4
  • Bangping Qian
    • 1
  • Bin Wang
    • 1
  • Jack C. Y. Cheng
    • 3
    • 4
  • Yong Qiu
    • 1
    • 4
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of Spine Surgery, The Affiliated Drum Tower HospitalMedical School of Nanjing UniversityNanjingChina
  2. 2.Department of Orthopaedic SurgeryLuan Affiliated Hospital of Anhui Medical UniversityLuanChina
  3. 3.Department of Orthopaedics and TraumatologyChinese University of Hong KongHong KongChina
  4. 4.The Joint Scoliosis Research Center of Nanjing University and Chinese University of Hong KongNanjingChina

Personalised recommendations