For citation purposes: Weiss HR, Moramarco M. Remodelling of trunk and backshape deformities in patients with scoliosis using standardized asymmetric computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing braces. Hard Tissue 2013 Feb 26;2(2):14.

Critical Review

 
Spinal Surgery

Remodelling of trunk and backshape deformities in patients with scoliosis using standardized asymmetric computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing braces

HR Weiss1*, M Moramarco2*
 

Authors affiliations

(1) Orthopedic Rehabilitation Services ‘Gesundheitsforum Nahetal’, Gensingen, Germany

(2) Scoliosis 3DC, Baldwin Green Common, Suite 204, Woburn, MA, USA

* Corresponding authors Emails: hr.weiss@skoliose-dr-weiss.com, marc@drmoramarco.com

Abstract

Introduction

In the literature, there are papers on scoliosis reporting improvements of spinal curvatures under brace treatment, but this predominately relates to results revealed on X-ray, not clinically. Therefore, it is worthwhile to review the literature showing improvements after brace treatment and to show what can be done conservatively via bracing in curvatures exceeding 45° Cobb.

Materials and method

• A PubMed review of the literature with a keyword search for ‘scoliosis’, ‘brace treatment’ and ‘improvement’ and alternatively for ‘scoliosis’, ‘orthosis’ and ‘improvement’ was conducted.

• Additionally, a case series of patients is demonstrated, with curvatures exceeding 45° clinically and radiologically.

Results

Ninety-two papers were displayed in the keyword search for ‘scoliosis’, ‘brace treatment’ and ‘improvement’ and 79 papers were displayed in the keyword search for ‘scoliosis’, ‘orthosis’ and ‘improvement’.

A case series of three patients with curvatures exceeding 45° is demonstrated within this paper, revealing radiological and clinical improvements when using the recent Chêneau standard of bracing with a reliable computer-aided design library of braces and an experienced team.

Discussion

The solution for the high variability of bracing outcomes is standardization. Braces can be standardized when applying well-tested, standardized brace models from computer-aided design libraries. In comparison, manually-made braces cannot be standardized, resulting in unpredictable outcomes. In addition, there is future advancement potential of baseline quality in braces produced using computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing technology.

Conclusion

Trunk and backshape can be improved conservatively even in patients with curvatures exceeding 45°. Modern concepts of bracing may improve even scoliotic deformities exceeding 45° Cobb, radiologically. Clinical improvements, with modern bracing concepts, are comparable to clinical improvements via surgery. For the majority of scoliosis patients with curvatures exceeding 45°, surgery is not indicated, considering the long-term detrimental effects as shown in the literature.

Introduction

Scoliosis is regarded as a three-dimensional (structural) deformity of the spine and trunk, which may deteriorate during growth[1][5]. Currently, treatment indications can be calculated reliably[6,7], but there is a debate about treatment protocols[8]. Conservative management of scoliosis has long been questioned[9][13]. The rate of success of brace treatment has been reported to be relatively low[9][13]. In international literature, the results achieved have been generalized and as for the conclusions, ‘Bracing does not work’[9][13]. However, there are a variety of braces available with different approaches and outcomes. Outcome of brace treatment is dependent upon in-brace correction, hours worn and patient compliance[14]. Biomechanically, correction may vary according to brace type, and each brace is tolerated differently, which may affect compliance. We may also assume that bracing outcomes will differ when comparing symmetric braces to asymmetric ones[14][20].

One problem in the literature regarding bracing is the comparison of patient samples with different prognoses, for example varying Risser classification and/or curve magnitude. Another problem is the type of brace must be differentiated, especially in consideration of the completely different philosophies of hard vs. soft braces. The hard brace allows for elongation, thereby decreasing compressive forces. In contrast, a soft brace augments compressive forces, contraindicated with scoliosis, perhaps contributing to the conclusions of a study on hard vs. soft braces[19]. Soft braces certainly allow for more spinal and trunk mobility; however, when applied to a moderate or severe curve, with significant rotation, evidence is lacking that the rotational component of scoliosis improves. Finally, it should be under consideration that brace distributors state beneficial effects, while independent studies do not corroborate this claim[18,19].

Scoliosis is a three-dimensional deformity of the spine and trunk, sometimes leading to a drastic increase in the curvature during growth, a process known as curvature progression[1][5]. A characteristic of scoliosis is increased stiffening of the major curvature, which is not overcorrected easily. This is why scoliosis cannot be satisfyingly corrected using unspecific symmetric braces or soft braces, allowing mobility[18,19].

In the past, when bracing standards were in question, braces had been applied in the range of 20° to 40°. In the literature, it has been stated that a curve exceeding 40° cannot be halted using the Boston brace, and surgical management with spinal fusion has been proposed for larger curves[15,16]. Today, it is known that surgical treatment has a high rate of long-term complications estimated to exceed 50% with no proven beneficial effects on patients’ health in terms of improving vital capacity, and under discussion recently, the uncertainty of the long-term effects of metallosis[21][29]. Currently, brace treatment has advanced (Figure 1), with success rates exceeding 95% when the SRS criteria for inclusion are applied[30].

Skeletally immature female presenting with 43° before CAD/CAM Chêneau brace. In-brace correction to –8°. After 6 months, this patient had outgrown the initial brace: intermediate result 23° without brace and a significant improvement of clinical appearance. (With kind permission by Pflaum, Munich, taken from Weiss HR: Best Practice in conservative scoliosis care 2012.)

Therefore, clinicians should strive to improve in-brace correction and patient compliance[14] through comfort, since bracing today offers the best documented mode of treatment with an acceptable ‘cost/effect relation’ for the patient during growth[21][29] and is non-invasive. In the literature, there are papers showing improvement of curvatures under brace treatment, but this mainly relates to results revealed on an X-ray, not clinically[30]. Therefore, it appears worthwhile to review the literature revealing improvements after brace treatment and to show what can be done conservatively via bracing in curvatures exceeding 45° Cobb.

Materials and methods

• A PubMed review of the literature was undertaken with a keyword search for ‘scoliosis’, ‘brace treatment’ and ‘improvement’ and alternatively for ‘scoliosis’, ‘orthosis’ and ‘improvement’.

• Additionally, a case series of three patients is demonstrated, with curvatures exceeding 45° clinically and radiologically.

Results

Ninety-two papers were displayed when using the keyword search for ‘scoliosis’, ’brace treatment’ and ‘improvement’. Seventy-nine papers were displayed when using the keyword search for ‘scoliosis’, ‘orthosis’ and ‘improvement’. Nine papers from the list were of interest for our research and are discussed in the next section of this paper[31][39]. There is a limited body of evidence demonstrating clinical improvements[33,35,37] via bracing, and even less research showing trunk-shape improvements.

Two papers demonstrated that clinical and radiological development may be different[33,37] and one paper with a case report demonstrated clinical and radiological improvement with a brace[35].

A case series of three patients with curvatures exceeding 45° is demonstrated here, showing that radiological and clinical improvement is possible when using the recent Chêneau standard of bracing with a reliable computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) library of braces and an experienced team.

Case 1 (Figure 2): Initial Cobb angle was 48° in an immature girl (Risser 0; age 11 years in 2008). Final result after brace treatment: 24° at weaning of brace (Risser 4, 16 years old, November 2012).

Skeletally immature 11-year-old female starting treatment with 48° Cobb in 2008. Final result at brace weaning 24° Cobb, with a significant improvement of trunk symmetry and alignment.

Case 2 (Figures 35): Skeletally immature boy with a decompensated thoracic curvature of 56° Cobb having had a progression in the brace worn prior to treatment in the department of the first author. Curvature was reduced at weaning to 43°; however, drastic clinical improvement has been achieved. The single thoracic curve has been transferred into a double major curve, which clinically improves cosmetic appearance since the spine is more balanced (Figure 5). An added benefit is that double curves progress less after cessation of growth as is well known in the literature[4].

Skeletally immature male with a decompensated thoracic curvature of 56° Cobb having progressed in the brace worn prior to starting treatment in the department of the first author. First in-brace result achieved with a cast-made Chêneau brace.

Skeletally immature male with a decompensated thoracic curvature of 56° Cobb initially (Figure 3). Second in-brace result achieved with a CAD/CAM Chêneau brace clearly mirroring the deformity

Curvature was reduced at weaning to 43°; however, significant clinical improvement has been achieved. The single thoracic curve has been transformed into a double major curve, which clinically improves cosmetic appearance since the spine is more balanced (Figure 7). Also, double curves progress less after cessation of growth as is well known in literature[4].

Case 3: (Figures 68): Skeletally immature 13-year-old girl with a decompensated thoracic curvature of 54° Cobb at the start of treatment. Curvature was reduced at weaning to 33°. Therefore, clinical improvement has also been achieved. The single thoracic curve has been transferred into a double major curve, which clinically improves cosmetic appearance since the spine is more balanced (Figure 7). Again, double curves progress less after cessation of growth as is well known in the literature[4].

Skeletally immature 13-year-old female with a decompensated thoracic curvature of 54° Cobb at the start of treatment and with the intermediate result before weaning off the brace, visible on the right.

Curvature was reduced at weaning to 33°; however, significant clinical improvement has been achieved.

The single thoracic curve has been transformed into a double major curve, which clinically improves cosmetic appearance since the spine is more balanced (Figure 7). Also, double curves progress less after cessation of growth as is well known in literature[4].

Discussion

The authors have referenced some of their own studies in this review. These referenced studies have been conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki (1964) and the protocols of these studies have been approved by the relevant ethics committees related to the institution in which they were performed. All human subjects, in these referenced studies, gave informed consent to participate in these studies.

It has been demonstrated that improvements can be achieved during growth when high corrective braces are applied[14,29,30,33,35]. Radiological improvements have been demonstrated, but little is known about the effects of specific bracing on the trunk and backshape of the patients. Previously, one paper was published showing an increase of curvature radiologically with a drastic clinical improvement. This indicates that curvature and backshape sometimes may develop differently[33].

Adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS), in principle, is a benign disease with little impact on a patient’s health[40]. Improvements of backshape may be considered more important than Cobb angle on an X-ray[30]. It is known that after surgery, the rib hump sometimes reappears within 12 months[21]. At this time, there is no current published evidence that backshape and trunk deformity are stable after brace treatment in patients with curvatures exceeding 45°. However, there are cases where it has been shown that a stable correction, 18–24 months after brace weaning, is attainable for patients with initial curvature angles of less than 45°[30].

In future studies, clinicians should strive for an improved positive long-term bracing outcome while considering the patient’s appearance, social participation and satisfaction.

Many papers found in the literature do not define the brace investigated, but nonetheless conclude ‘brace treatment does not work’ rather than designating and demonstrating the specific brace action[9][13].

Furthermore, competing conclusions have been drawn. One paper stated that bracing would affect the outcome of surgery[31], and one study found that braces do not affect the surgical outcome[34]. The authors of both papers generalized the presented results, but in reality, only one brace type had been investigated. Obviously, it is not the name of the brace that is important, but the specific corrective effect a brace potentially has on different patterns of curvature[14,30]. For instance, there are studies showing that the Chêneau brace corrects better than other brace types[14,30], but the standard of Chêneau bracing may differ among practitioners (Figure 9). The solution for the high variability of all braces is standardization. Braces can be standardized when applying well-tested and standardized brace models from CAD libraries. Braces made manually cannot be standardized and bear the risk of gaining unpredictable results, while standardized braces today may provide a high baseline quality with the potential for future improvement.

A thoracic curve decompensated to the right (see left) affords static overcorrection to the left to achieve a good in-brace correction and a beneficial clinical outcome as illustrated in Figures 18. On the right, the so-called ‘Chêneau braces’ made by cast do not change the decompensation and will not be able to improve curvature or clinical appearance. This kind of bracing is inferior and, therefore, not optimal for the patient.

Case results, as demonstrated within this paper, are attained with standardized braces. Recent technology developed using CAD/CAM enables a high standard of bracing, worldwide, to be distributed via email files for local brace creation.

AIS is the most common form of scoliosis. In the skeletally immature patient with Cobb angles in excess of 40° and in more mature patients where Cobb angle measures in excess of 45° or 50°, spinal fusion surgery is the most common intervention. However, long-term studies have revealed outcomes concluding that the risks of surgery are many[21][27]. In contrast, bracing of the highest standards now offers an alternative for the patient, leading to improved outcomes, without surgery. Brace advancements must be fostered to provide patients with curvatures greater than 50° with beneficial clinical and radiological outcomes, without the associated risks[21][29].

The role of exercises in the treatment of progressive curvatures is still debated till date[41] as it was in 1985[38]. However, there is growing evidence that curve pattern scoliosis-specific exercises, learned via instruction by a specially trained practitioner, may be beneficial. Furthermore, in an inpatient rehabilitation setting, the patient may benefit from the psychological support[42][44].

Finally, it has been demonstrated that the trunk and backshape can be modified, and corrected somewhat, using an asymmetric standardized CAD/CAM brace, as presented in the case series of three AIS patients with curvatures exceeding 45° Cobb. Previously, another case report, also using the Chêneau brace concept, demonstrated improvements in one patient with a curvature exceeding 45°[35]. In consideration of this case series, and the aforementioned study, it can be stated that improvements of scoliotic deformities are attainable when trained clinicians apply braces of the highest standards. Admittedly, conclusive evidence is lacking regarding the long-term effects of bracing and regarding the stability of curvature, when improvements are achieved. However, the same may be stated regarding surgical outcomes since it is not unheard of for a deformity to reappear as early as 1 year postoperatively[21]. Therefore, results demonstrating stable corrections of 18–24 months, via bracing[30], make indications for surgery questionable.

Conclusion

Trunk and backshape can be improved, conservatively, even in patients with curvatures exceeding 45°.

Some current bracing concepts may improve scoliotic deformities exceeding 45° Cobb, radiologically.

Clinical improvements attained with current bracing concepts are comparable to the clinical improvements of surgery, without the risks.

For the majority of scoliosis patients, with curvatures exceeding 45°, surgery should not be indicated, considering that a large percentage of long-term effects are detrimental, as shown in the literature.

Acknowledgement

All patients visible on the pictures and their parents have kindly agreed to the publication of their photos within this article.

Abbreviations list

AIS, adolescent idiopathic scoliosis

Authors contribution

All authors contributed to conception and design, manuscript preparation, read and approved the final manuscript.

Competing interests

HR Weiss is advisor of Koob GmbH & Co KG, M Moramarco: none declared.

Conflict of interests

None declared.

A.M.E

All authors abide by the Association for Medical Ethics (AME) ethical rules of disclosure.

References

  • 1. Winter RB . Classification and terminology In: Lonstein J Bradford D Winter R Ogilvie J editors. Moe’s textbook of scoliosis and other spinal deformities. Philadelphia: WB Saunders 1995;p3944.
  • 2. Winter RB . Natural history of spinal deformity In: Lonstein J Bradford D Winter R Ogilvie J, editors. Moe’s textbook of scoliosis and other spinal deformities. Philadelphia: WB Saunders 1995;p8794.
  • 3. Goldberg CJ, Moore DP, Fogarty EE, Dowling FE. Adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: natural history and prognosis. Stud Health Technol Inform 2002;9159-63.
  • 4. Asher MA, Burton DC. Adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: natural history and long term treatment effects. Scoliosis 2006 Mar;1(1):2.
  • 5. Hawes MC, O’Brien JP. The transformation of spinal curvature into spinal deformity: pathological processes and implications for treatment. Scoliosis 2006 Mar;1(1):3.
  • 6. . SOSORT guideline committee, Weiss HR, Negrin S, Rigo M, Kotwicki T, Hawes MC , et al. Indications for conservative management of scoliosis (guidelines). Scoliosis 2006 May;15.
  • 7. Negrini S, Aulisa AG, Aulisa L, Circo AB, de Mauroy JC, Durmala J. 2011 SOSORT guidelines: Orthopaedic and rehabilitation treatment of idiopathic scoliosis during growth. Scoliosis 2012 Jan;7(1):3.
  • 8. Lonstein JE . Scoliosis: Surgical versus non-surgical treatment. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2006 Feb;443248-59.
  • 9. Goldberg CJ, Moore DP, Fogarty EE, Dowling FE. Adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: the effect of brace treatment on the incidence of surgery. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2001 Jan;26(1):42-7.
  • 10. Goldberg CJ, Moore DP, Fogarty EE, Dowling FE. Scoliosis: a review. Pediatr Surg Int 2008 Feb;24(2):129-44.
  • 11. Weinstein SL, Dolan LA, Cheng JC, Danielsson A, Morcuende JA. Adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Lancet 2008 May;371(9623):1527-37.
  • 12. Dolan LA, Donnelly MJ, Spratt KF, Weinstein SL. Professional opinion concerning the effectiveness of bracing relative to observation in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. J Pediatr Orthop 2007 Apr–May;27(3):270-6.
  • 13. Dolan LA, Weinstein SL. Surgical rates after observation and bracing for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: an evidence-based review. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2007 Sep;32(19 Suppl.):S91-100.
  • 14. Landauer F, Wimmer C, Behensky H. Estimating the final outcome of brace treatment for idiopathic thoracic scoliosis at 6-month follow-up. Pediatr Rehabil 2003;6(3–4):201-7.
  • 15. Nachemson AL, Peterson LE. 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 1995 Jun;77815-22.
  • 16. Danielsson AJ, Hasserius R, Ohlin A, Nachemson AL. A prospective study of brace treatment versus observation alone in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: a follow-up mean of 16 years after maturity. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2007 Sep;32(20):2198-207.
  • 17. Lange JE, Steen H, Gunderson R, Brox JI. Long-term results after Boston brace treatment in late-onset juvenile and adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Scoliosis 2011 Aug;618.
  • 18. Weiss HR, Weiss GM. Brace treatment during pubertal growth spurt in girls with idiopathic scoliosis (IS): a prospective trial comparing two different concepts. Pediatr Rehabil 2005 Jul–Sep;8(3):199-206.
  • 19. Wong MS, Cheng JC, Lam TP, Ng BK, Sin SW, Lee-Shum SL. The effect of rigid versus flexible spinal orthosis on the clinical efficacy and acceptance of the patients with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Spine 2008 May;33(12):1360-5.
  • 20. Negrini S, Minozzi S, Bettany-Saltikov J, Zaina F, Chockalingam N, Grivas TB. Braces for idiopathic scoliosis in adolescents. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2010 Jan;1CD006850.
  • 21. Hawes M . Impact of spine surgery on signs and symptoms of spinal deformity. Pediatr. Rehabil 2006 Oct–Dec;9(4):318-39.
  • 22. Weiss HR, Goodall D. The treatment of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) according to present evidence. A systematic review. Eur J Phys Rehabil Med 2008 Jun;44(2):177-93.
  • 23. Hawes MC, O’Brien JP. A century of spine surgery: what can patients expect?. Disabil Rehabil 2008;30(10):808-17.
  • 24. Weiss HR . Adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) – an indication for surgery? A systematic review of the literature. Disabil Rehabil 2008;30(10):799-807.
  • 25. Westrick ER, Ward WT. Adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: 5-year to 20-year evidence-based surgical results. J Pediatr Orthop 2011 Jan–Feb;31((1 Suppl.)):S61-8.
  • 26. Weiss HR, Goodall D. Rate of complications in scoliosis surgery – a systematic review of the Pub Med literature. Scoliosis 2008 Aug;39.
  • 27. Mueller FJ, Gluch H. Cotrel-dubousset instrumentation for the correction of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Long-term results with an unexpected high revision rate. Scoliosis 2012 Jun;7(1):13.
  • 28. Cheuk DKL, Wong V, Wraige E, Baxter P, Cole A, N’Diaye T. Surgery for scoliosis in Duchenne muscular dystrophy Editorial Group: Cochrane Neuromuscular Disease Group. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2010.
  • 29. Weiss HR, Moramarco M. Scoliosis – treatment indications according to current evidence. OA Musculoskeletal Med 2013 Mar;1(1):1.
  • 30. Weiss HR, Werkmann M. Rate of surgery in a sample of patients fulfilling the SRS inclusion criteria treated with a Chêneau Brace of actual Standard. Stud Health Technol Inform 2012;176407-10.
  • 31. Diab M, Sharkey M, Emans J, Lenke L, Oswald T, Sucato D. Preoperative bracing affects postoperative outcome of posterior spine fusion with instrumentation for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2010 Sep;35(20):1876-9.
  • 32. Pham VM, Herbaux B, Schill A, Thevenon A. [Evaluation of the Chêneau brace in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis]. Ann Readapt Med Phys 2007 Apr;50(3):125-33.
  • 33. Weiss HR . Clinical improvement and radiological progression in a girl with early onset scoliosis (EOS) treated conservatively--a case report. Scoliosis 2006 Jul;113.
  • 34. Weigert KP, Nygaard LM, Christensen FB, Hansen ES, Bünger C. Outcome in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis after brace treatment and surgery assessed by means of the Scoliosis Research Society Instrument 24. Eur Spine J 2006 Jul;15(7):1108-17.
  • 35. Rigo M . Radiological and cosmetic improvement 2 years after brace weaning--a case report. Pediatr Rehabil 2003 Jul–Dec;6(3–4):195-9.
  • 36. Lonstein JE, Winter RB. The Milwaukee brace for the treatment of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. A review of one thousand and twenty patients. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1994 Aug;76(8):1207-21.
  • 37. Weisz I, Jefferson RJ, Carr AJ, Turner-Smith AR, McInerney A, Houghton GR. Back shape in brace treatment of idiopathic scoliosis. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1989 Mar;240157-63.
  • 38. Carman D, Roach JW, Speck G, Wenger DR, Herring JA. Role of exercises in the Milwaukee brace treatment of scoliosis. J Pediatr Orthop 1985 Jan–Feb;5(1):65-8.
  • 39. Jonasson-Rajala E, Josefsson E, Lundberg B, Nilsson H. Boston thoracic brace in the treatment of idiopathic scoliosis. Initial correction. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1984 Mar;18337-41.
  • 40. Weinstein SL, Dolan LA, Spratt KF, Peterson KK, Spoonamore MJ, Ponseti IV. Health and function of patients with untreated idiopathic scoliosis: a 50-year natural history study. JAMA 2003 Feb;289(5):559-67.
  • 41. Weiss HR . Physical therapy intervention studies on idiopathic scoliosis-review with the focus on inclusion criteria. Scoliosis 2012 Jan;7(1):4.
  • 42. Weiss HR, Weiss G, Petermann F. Incidence of curvature progression in idiopathic scoliosis patients treated with scoliosis in-patient rehabilitation (SIR): an age- and sex-matched controlled study. Pediatr Rehabil 2003 Jan–Mar;6(1):23-30.
  • 43. Borysov M, Borysov A. Scoliosis short-term rehabilitation (SSTR) according to ‘Best Practice’ standards – are the results repeatable? Scoliosis. 2012 Jan;7(1):1.
  • 44. Pugacheva N . Corrective exercises in multimodality therapy of idiopathic scoliosis in children - analysis of six weeks efficiency – pilot study. Stud Health Technol Inform 2012;176365-71.
Licensee to OAPL (UK) 2013. Creative Commons Attribution License (CC-BY)
Keywords