Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

How quantity and quality of brace wear affect the brace treatment outcomes for AIS

  • Original Article
  • Published:
European Spine Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

To determine the reliability of a prognostic curve progression model and the role of the quantity and quality of brace wear for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) brace treatment.

Methods

To develop a curve progression model for full-time AIS brace treatment, 20 AIS subjects (Group 1) prescribed full-time thoracolumbar sacral orthosis (TLSO) were monitored and followed for 2 years beyond maturity. The developed curve progression model was: curve progression (in degrees) = 33 + 0.11 × Peterson risk (%) − 0.07 in-brace correction (%) − 0.45 × quality (%) − 0.48 × quantity (%) + 0.0062 × quantity × quality. To validate the model, 40 new (test) subjects (Group 2) who met the same inclusion criteria and used the same type of monitors, were monitored and followed for 2 years after bracing.

Results

For the 40 test subjects (Group 2), the average in-brace correction was 40 ± 22 %. The average quantity and quality of the brace wear were 56 ± 19 and 55 ± 17 %, respectively. Twelve subjects (30 %) progressed of which 10 subjects (25 %) required surgery and 28 subjects (70 %) showed no progression. The accuracy of the model to determine which patients would progress was 88 % (35/40) which was better than the Peterson’s risk model (68 %; 26/40) alone. Patients who had the combined quantity times the quality over a threshold 43 % had a success treatment rate of 95 %.

Conclusions

This study showed the prognostic model of brace treatment outcome on AIS patients treated with full-time TLSO was reliable. Both the quantity and quality of the brace wear were important factors in achieving successful brace treatment.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Lonstein JE (1994) Adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Lancet 344:1407–1412

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Negrini S, Grivas TB, Kotwicki T, Maruyama T, Rigo M, Weiss HR, The Members of The Scientific Society On Scoliosis Orthopaedic and Rehabilitation Treatment (SOSORT) (2006) Why do we treat adolescent idiopathic scoliosis? What we want to obtain and to avoid for our patients. SOSORT 2005 Consensus paper. Scoliosis 1:4

  3. Weinstein SL, Dolan LA, Wright JG, Dobbs MB (2013) Effects of bracing in adolescents with idiopathic scoliosis. N Engl J Med 396:1512–1521

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Ajemba P, Ramirez L, Durdle N, Hill D, Raso J (2005) A support vectors classifier approach to predicting the risk of progression of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. IEEE Trans Inf Technol Biomed 9:276–282

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Lonstein JE, Carlson M (1984) The prediction of curve progression in untreated idiopathic scoliosis during growth. J Bone Joint Surg 66:1061–1071

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Negrini S, Aulisa A, Aulisa L, Circo A (2011) 2011 SOSORT guidelines: orthopaedic and rehabilitation treatment of idiopathic scoliosis during growth. Scoliosis 7:3–37

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Peterson LE, Nachemson AL (1985) Prediction of progression of the curve in girls who have adolescent idiopathic scoliosis of moderate severity. J Bone Joint Surg 77(6):823–827

    Google Scholar 

  8. Wynasky GT, Schultz AB (1991) Optimization of skeletal configuration: studies of scoliosis correction biomechanics. J Biomech 24(8):721–732

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Lou E, Raso VJ, Hill DL, Durdle NG, Mahood JK, Moreau MJ (2004) Correlation between quantity and quality of orthosis wear and treatment outcomes in AIS. Prosthet Orthot Int J 28:49–54

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Lou E, Hill D, Raso J, Mahood J, Moreau M (2006) Prediction of brace treatment outcomes by monitoring brace usage. Stud Health Technol Inform 123:239–244

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Richards BS, Bernstein RM, D-Amato CR et al (2005) Standardization of criteria for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis brace studies: SRS Committee on Bracing and Nonoperative Management. Spine 30:2068–2075

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Upadhyay S, Nelson I, Ho E, Hsu L, Leong J (1995) New prognostic factors to predict the final outcome of brace treatment in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Spine 20:537–545

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Katz D, Herring J, Browne R, Kelly D, Birch J (2010) Brace wear control of curve progression in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. J Bone Joint Surg 92:1343–1352

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Dolan L, Weinstein S (2007) Surgical rates after observation and bracing for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Spine 32:S91–S100

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Negrini S, Minozzi S, Bettany-Saltikov J, Zaina F, Chockalingam N, Grivas T, Kotwicki T, Maruyama T, Romano M, Vasiliadis E (2010) Braces for idiopathic scoliosis in adolescents. Spine 35:1285–1293

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Rowe D, Michigan K (2003) Idiopathic scoliosis. The Scoliosis Research Society Brace Manual. http://www.srs.org/professionals/education_materials/SRS_bracing_manual/. Accessed 2003

  17. Wu H, Ronsky J, Cheriet F, Kupper J, Harder JA, Xue D, Zernicke RF (2010) Prediction of scoliosis progression with serial three-dimensional spinal curves and the artificial progression surface technique. Med Biol Eng Comput 48:1065–1075

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Wu H, Ronsky J, Poncet P, Cheriet F, Xue D, Harder JA, Zernicke RF (2005) Prediction of scoliosis progression in time series using a hybrid learning technique. In: Proceedings of the 2005 IEEE engineering in medicine and biology 27th annual conference, Shanghai, China, pp 6452–6455

  19. Peduzzi P, Concato J, Feinstein AR, Holford TR (1995) Importance of events per independent variable in proportional hazards regression analysis. II. Accuracy and precision of regression estimates. J Clin Epidemiol 48(12):1503–1510

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This study was supported through funding provided by the Edmonton Orthopaedic Research Committee.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Surgery, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, T6G2R3, Canada

    Edmond H. M. Lou, Douglas L. Hill, Jim V. Raso, Marc Moreau & Douglas Hedden

  2. Alberta Health Services-Glenrose Rehabilitation Hospital, Edmonton, AB, T5G 0H1, Canada

    Edmond H. M. Lou, Douglas L. Hill & Jim V. Raso

Authors
  1. Edmond H. M. Lou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Douglas L. Hill
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jim V. Raso
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Marc Moreau
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Douglas Hedden
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Edmond H. M. Lou.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

None.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lou, E.H.M., Hill, D.L., Raso, J.V. et al. How quantity and quality of brace wear affect the brace treatment outcomes for AIS. Eur Spine J 25, 495–499 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-015-4233-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-015-4233-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation