Journal of Children's Orthopaedics

, Volume 4, Issue 3, pp 211–218

Objective compliance of adolescent girls with idiopathic scoliosis in a dynamic SpineCor brace

  • Carol C. Hasler
  • Stephanie Wietlisbach
  • Philippe Büchler
Original Clinical Article



Dynamic SpineCor was designed to overcome the disadvantages of rigid orthoses—bulkiness, physical constraint and warming—and to improve the acceptance and compliance as limiting factors of brace treatment. Those theoretical benefits have not been proved by compliance studies yet.


SpineCor braces of 12 adolescent scoliotic girls were equipped with flexible temperature loggers, which were sandwiched between gel foam and the brace’s pelvic base. Patients and parents were blinded for the observation period of 14 days and gave post-hoc consent. The logger yielded 672 time-stamped values at 30-min intervals. Pilot testing revealed values beyond the 30°C threshold as indicative for brace wear.


The average overall compliance (% wearing hours/prescribed 23 h) was 54% ± 22.3 (range, 11.8–95.8%). The youngest patients (aged 10–12 years) were significantly more compliant than the others (P < 0.05). Most patients had a scattered wearing pattern: one was a day-wearer, one a night-wearer and only the two high adherers showed a consistent daily pattern. There was no significant difference between weekdays, weekdays and weekends, nor between day and night wear.


The current study showed that the compliance of patients in a dynamic SpineCor is as limited as in a conventional brace. This is in line with earlier data on patients’ SpineCor and rigid brace acceptance evaluated by a questionnaire and on temperature logging in rigid braces.


Idiopathic scoliosis SpineCor Flexible Brace Compliance Temperature logger 


  1. 1.
    Lou E, Raso JV, Hill DL, Mahood JK, Moreau MJ (2004) Correlation between quantity and quality of orthosis wear and treatment outcomes in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Prosthet Orthot Int 28:49–54Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Rahman T, Bowen JR, Takemitsu M, Scott C (2005) The association between brace compliance and outcome for patients with idiopathic scoliosis. J Pediatr Orthop 25:420–422CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lindeman M, Behm K (1999) Cognitive strategies and self-esteem as predictors of brace-wear noncompliance in patients with idiopathic scoliosis and kyphosis. J Pediatr Orthop 19:493–499CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Korovessis P, Zacharatos S, Koureas G, Megas P (2007) Comparative multifactorial analysis of the effects of idiopathic adolescent scoliosis and Scheuermann kyphosis on the self-perceived health status of adolescents treated with brace. Eur Spine J 16:537–546. doi:10.1007/s00586-006-0214-9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Helfenstein A, Lankes M, Ohlert K, Varoga D, Hahne HJ, Ulrich HW, Hassenpflug J (2006) The objective determination of compliance in treatment of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis with spinal orthoses. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 31:339–344. doi:10.1097/01.brs.0000197412.70050.0dCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Morton A, Riddle R, Buchanan R, Katz D, Birch J (2008) Accuracy in the prediction and estimation of adherence to bracewear before and during treatment of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. J Pediatr Orthop 28:336–341. doi:10.1097/BPO.0b013e318168d154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lou E, Raso J, Hill D, Durdle N, Mahood J, Moreau M (2002) Brace monitoring system for the treatment of scoliosis. Stud Health Technol Inform 88:218–221Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Nicholson GP, Ferguson-Pell MW, Smith K, Edgar M, Morley T (2003) The objective measurement of spinal orthosis use for the treatment of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 28:2243–2250 (discussion 2250–2241). doi:10.1097/01.BRS.0000085098.69522.52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Takemitsu M, Bowen JR, Rahman T, Glutting JJ, Scott CB (2004) Compliance monitoring of brace treatment for patients with idiopathic scoliosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 29:2070–2074, discussion 2074CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    MacLean WE Jr, Green NE, Pierre CB, Ray DC (1989) Stress and coping with scoliosis: psychological effects on adolescents and their families. J Pediatr Orthop 9:257–261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    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 2076–2067CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Christine C, Alin C, Rivard CH (2008) Treatment of early adolescent idiopathic scoliosis using the SpineCor System. Stud Health Technol Inform 135:341–355Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Wong MS, Cheng JC, Lam TP, Ng BK, Sin SW, Lee-Shum SL, Chow DH, Tam SY (2008) The effect of rigid versus flexible spinal orthosis on the clinical efficacy and acceptance of the patients with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 33:1360–1365. doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e31817329d9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Nicholson GP, Ferguson-Pell MW, Smith K, Edgar M, Morley T (2002) Quantitative measurement of spinal brace use and compliance in the treatment of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Stud Health Technol Inform 91:372–377Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    DiRaimondo CV, Green NE (1988) Brace-wear compliance in patients with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. J Pediatr Orthop 8:143–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Coillard C, Leroux MA, Zabjek KF, Rivard CH (2003) SpineCor—a non-rigid brace for the treatment of idiopathic scoliosis: post-treatment results. Eur Spine J 12:141–148. doi:10.1007/s00586-002-0467-xGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Griffet J, Leroux MA, Badeaux J, Coillard C, Zabjek KF, Rivard CH (2000) Relationship between gibbosity and Cobb angle during treatment of idiopathic scoliosis with the SpineCor brace. Eur Spine J 9:516–522CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Wong MS, Cheng CY, Ng BK, Lam TP, Sin SW, Lee-Shum LF, Chow HK, Tam YP (2008) The effect of rigid versus flexible spinal orthosis on the gait pattern of patients with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Gait Posture 27:189–195. doi:10.1016/j.gaitpost.2007.03.007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Weiss HR (2008) SpineCor vs. natural history—explanation of the results obtained using a simple biomechanical model. Stud Health Technol Inform 140:133–136Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lonstein JE, Carlson JM (1984) The prediction of curve progression in untreated idiopathic scoliosis during growth. J Bone Joint Surg Am 66:1061–1071Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Coillard C, Vachon V, Circo AB, Beauséjour M, Rivard CH (2007) Effectiveness of the SpineCor brace based on the new standardized criteria proposed by the scoliosis research society for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. J Pediatr Orthop 27:375–379. doi:10.1097/01.bpb.0000271330.64234.dbCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hunter LN, Sison-Williamson M, Mendoza MM, McDonald CM, Molitor F, Mulcahey MJ, Betz RR, Vogel LC, Bagley A (2008) The validity of compliance monitors to assess wearing time of thoracic-lumbar-sacral orthoses in children with spinal cord injury. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 33:1554–1561. doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e318178864eCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Lou E, Hill D, Raso J, Mahood J, Moreau M (2006) Improving brace wear with active brace system. Stud Health Technol Inform 123:498–504Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Tones M, Moss N, Polly DW Jr (2006) A review of quality of life and psychosocial issues in scoliosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 31:3027–3038. doi:10.1097/01.brs.0000249555.87601.fcCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Matsunaga S, Hayashi K, Naruo T, Nozoe S, Komiya S (2005) Psychologic management of brace therapy for patients with idiopathic scoliosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 30:547–550CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© EPOS 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Carol C. Hasler
    • 1
  • Stephanie Wietlisbach
    • 2
  • Philippe Büchler
    • 3
  1. 1.Head Spine Surgery, Orthopaedic DepartmentUniversity Children’s HospitalBaselSwitzerland
  2. 2.Medical SchoolUniversity of ZurichZurichSwitzerland
  3. 3.Institute for Surgical Technology and BiomechanicsUniversity of Bern, Medical FacultyBernSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations