4.5 Review

Predictive factors for brace treatment outcome in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: a best-evidence synthesis

Journal

EUROPEAN SPINE JOURNAL
Volume 28, Issue 3, Pages 511-525

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00586-018-05870-6

Keywords

Adolescent idiopathic scoliosis; Brace; Treatment; Outcome; Predictive

Ask authors/readers for more resources

PurposeTo evaluate predictive factors for brace treatment outcome in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) by a systematic review of the literature.MethodsEligible studies evaluating one or more predictive factors for brace treatment outcome were included following a systematic search in PubMed and EMBASE on October 23, 2017. Inclusion criteria were: (1) subjects diagnosed with AIS, (2) age18years, (3) treated with a thoraco-lumbo-sacral orthosis (TLSO), and (4) evaluated one or more predictive factors of treatment outcome (failure and/or success). The methodological quality of included studies was independently assessed by two authors. Pooling was not possible due to heterogeneity in statistical analysis. Predictive factors were presented according to a best-evidence synthesis.ResultsThe literature search identified 26 studies that met the inclusion criteria, and multiple types of TLSO braces were identified (Boston, Wilmington, Cheneau, Osaka Medical College, Dresdner Scoliosis Orthosis and SPoRT). A total of 19 radiographic and 8 clinical predictive factors were reported. Strong evidence was found that lack of initial in-brace correction is associated with treatment failure. Moderate evidence suggests that brace wear time is associated with failure and success, whereas initial curve magnitude and curve type are not.ConclusionThe results of this review suggest that lack of initial in-brace correction is strongly associated with brace treatment failure. Future studies on the threshold for minimal immediate in-brace correction, as a potential indication for brace treatment, are recommended. [GRAPHICS] .

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available