Results of bracing adolescent idiopathic scoliosis in the context of clinical practice and the Scoliosis Research Society’s criteria: 5-year observational study from a German orthopaedic university hospital

Brace therapy’s influence on adolescent idiopathic scoliosis’s (AIS) natural course is inconclusive.

Brace-treated AIS patients from 2016 to 2020 were examined regarding four endpoints at brace weaning: surgery need, curve progress ≥ 6° and > 45°, and curve improvement ≥ 6°. Prediction variables’ influence was computed for the all-patients group and three subgroups (Subgroup 1: fulfilling the Scoliosis Research Society’s [SRS] criteria, Subgroup 2: initial Cobb angle < 25°, Subgroup 3: initial Cobb angle > 40°). According to the data characteristics, parametric and non-parametric tests and binary logistic regression were performed.

The research included 69 patients. Overall, after brace weaning surgery was recommended for 20.3% of them, curve progression was ≥ 6° in 23.2%, the Cobb angle was beyond 45° in 11.6%, and the Cobb angle improved by ≥ 6° in 20.3%. Patients needing surgery had a significantly higher initial Cobb angle (38.8° ± 9.8° vs 27.8° ± 7.6°, p < 0.001), lower Risser stages (p = 0.010), and higher Nash and Moe degrees (p = 0.030). Patients with curve progress ≥ 6° were younger at first curve notification (12.4 ± 1.5 vs 13.7 ± 1.7 years, p = 0.011) and older at menarche (13.4 ± 1.1 vs 12.6 ± 1.2 years, p = 0.037). Furthermore, 21.6% of all Risser 3 and 4 patients had still curve progress ≥ 6°. In-brace correction was significantly higher in patients with curve improvement ≥ 6° vs < 6° (54.0% ± 31.2% vs 31.9% ± 30.7%; p = 0.019). Nine patients fulfilled the SRS criteria, 22 had initial Cobb angles < 25°, and 11 had > 40°. Real brace wear (RBW) in all groups had no significant effect on outcome. Two significant subgroup differences were found: Surgery recommendation and curve progression beyond 45° were significantly more frequent in the initial Cobb angle > 40° subgroup.

Brace effectiveness can be assumed because curve improvement was achieved in nearly one-fifth with sufficient in-brace correction. However, no significant influence of RBW on the outcome endpoints was demonstrated. To clarify conflicting results, big data management, including untreated patients, must be employed to further research AIS’s multifactorial influenced aetiology and course. Meanwhile, it is worth starting bracing in AIS in practice also beyond the SRS’s criteria.