| Literature DB >> 29580223 |
Sai-Hu Mao1,2, Xu Sun1,2, Ben-Long Shi1,2, Yong Qiu1,2, Bang-Ping Qian3,4, Jack C Y Cheng2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Pre-pubertal idiopathic scoliosis (IS) is associated with high risk of bracing ineffectiveness. Integrated multidimensional maturity assessments are useful but complex to predict the high-risk occurrence of curve progression. This study is designed to provide a simple screening method for brace effectiveness by determining whether or not the braced curve behavior at growth spurt, being defined as variations in Cobb angle velocity (AV) at peak height velocity (PHV), can be a new factor predictive of brace outcome prescribed before PHV.Entities:
Keywords: Angle velocity; Bracing outcome; Curve progression; Idiopathic scoliosis; Peak height velocity
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29580223 PMCID: PMC5870088 DOI: 10.1186/s12891-018-1987-9
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Musculoskelet Disord ISSN: 1471-2474 Impact factor: 2.362
Comparison of the baseline demographic and clinical characteristics between the failure and success brace groups
| Variables | All patients | Failure | Success | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age at diagnosis (yrs) | 10.5 ± 1.3 | 10.3 ± 1.2 | 10.9 ± 1.3 | 0.159 |
| Age at final follow-up (yrs) | 15.4 ± 2.0 | 15.3 ± 2.2 | 15.5 ± 1.6 | 0.705 |
| Initial curve magnitude (°) | 26.5 ± 5.0 | 26.4 ± 5.4 | 26.7 ± 4.7 | 0.857 |
| Final curve magnitude (°) | 34.0 ± 12.6 | 42.5 ± 8.4 | 22.8 ± 7.3 | 0.000*,a |
| Final Risser score | 3.8 ± 0.9 | 3.6 ± 1.1 | 4.0 ± 0.0 | 0.134 |
| PHV (cm/y) | 9.1 ± 1.6 | 9.0 ± 1.7 | 9.3 ± 1.4 | 0.582 |
| Timing of PHV (yrs) | 11.6 ± 0.9 | 11.5 ± 1.0 | 11.7 ± 0.9 | 0.684 |
| AV at PHV (°/y) | −1.5 ± 10.9 | 2.3 ± 9.1 | −6.5 ± 11.4 | 0.016*,a |
| Initial height (cm) | 141.9 ± 8.4 | 140.6 ± 8.6 | 143.7 ± 8.0 | 0.237 |
| Final height (cm) | 160.4 ± 5.6 | 159.2 ± 5.8 | 161.8 ± 5.1 | 0.176 |
| Percentage of major thoracic curve (%) | 57.1 | 80 | 26.7 | 0.002*,b |
AV Angle velocity, PHV Peak height velocity
Analyses were performed through
aindependent sample T test
bcrosstab analysis
*p < 0.05
Comparison of the baseline demographic and clinical characteristics between the positive and negative AV groups
| Variables | Negative AV | Positive AV | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Failure rate (%) | 36.8 | 81.2 | 0.016*,b |
| Surgical rate (%) | 21.1 | 75.0 | 0.002*,b |
| AV at PHV (°/y) | −9.6 ± 7.6 | 8.2 ± 4.0 | 0.000*,a |
| Initial curve magnitude (°) | 26.3 ± 4.6 | 26.7 ± 5.7 | 0.832 |
| Final curve magnitude (°) | 29.4 ± 9.1 | 39.6 ± 14.2 | 0.015*,a |
| PHV (cm/y) | 8.8 ± 1.5 | 9.4 ± 1.8 | 0.327 |
| Timing of PHV (yrs) | 11.7 ± 1.1 | 11.5 ± 0.8 | 0.732 |
| Age at diagnosis (yrs) | 11.0 ± 1.3 | 10.0 ± 1.0 | 0.014*,a |
| Initial SSMS | 2.7 ± 0.6 | 2.2 ± 0.5 | 0.006*,a |
| Initial DRU (R) | 7.0 ± 0.8 | 6.4 ± 1.0 | 0.053 |
| Initial DRU (U) | 5.1 ± 0.8 | 4.3 ± 0.9 | 0.016*,a |
| SSMS at PHV | 3.4 ± 0.5 | 3.5 ± 0.6 | 0.495 |
| DRU (R) at PHV | 8.0 ± 0.7 | 8.0 ± 0.7 | 0.999 |
| DRU (U) at PHV | 5.9 ± 0.5 | 5.8 ± 0.4 | 0.244 |
| Percentage of major thoracic curve (%) | 47.3 | 68.8 | 0.306 |
| Initial height (cm) | 145.2 ± 7.2 | 138.3 ± 8.2 | 0.013*,a |
| Final height (cm) | 161.3 ± 5.4 | 159.2 ± 5.6 | 0.257 |
AV Angle velocity, PHV Peak height velocity, SSMS Simplified skeletal maturity score, DRU Distal radius and ulna classification
Analyses were performed through
aindependent sample T test
bcrosstab analysis
*p < 0.05
Results of logistic regression analysis
| Regression coefficient |
| Odds ratio | 95% CI | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| AV at PHV | 2.227 | 0.028 | 9.268 | 1.279–67.137 |
| Curve pattern | 2.595 | 0.007 | 13.391 | 2.006–89.412 |
| Cobb angle | 0.885 | 0.382 | 2.423 | 0.333–17.638 |
CI=Confidence Interval
Treatment outcome was coded as 0 for successful bracing and 1 for failed bracing. Magnitude of major curve was coded as 0 for < 30° and 1 for ≥30°. Curve pattern was coded as 0 for thoracolumbar or lumbar curves and 1 for major thoracic curves. AV by growth peak was coded as 0 for a negative value and 1 for a positive value
Fig. 1an adolescent girl, with major thoracolumbar IS at diagnosis (Cobb angle: 26°, curve apex: T12, SSMS 3, DRU(R) 8 and DRU (U) 5) (a, e). Full time Boston brace was prescribed, and the major Cobb angle kept being slowly progressive (b). The timing and magnitude of PHV was 7.7 cm/y and 12.1 years old, respectively (c). And the corresponding staging of SSMS, DRU (R) and DRU (U) were 4, 9 and 6, respectively (f). The AV decreased to − 13.5°/y by PHV, resulting in temporary curve resolution. By skeletal maturity aged 16.6 yrs., the major curve grew to 31° (d) and the brace treatment was considered successful
Fig. 2an adolescent girl, with major thoracic IS at diagnosis (Cobb angle: 30°, curve apex: T9, SSMS 3, DRU(R) 7 and DRU (U) 5) (a, e). Full time Milwaukee brace was prescribed, yet the major Cobb angle kept being slowly progressive (b). The timing and magnitude of PHV was 8.6 cm/y and 12.2 years old, respectively (c). And the corresponding staging of SSMS, DRU (R) and DRU (U) were 4, 8 and 6, respectively (f). The AV accelerated rapidly and by PHV it reached 10.9°/y, resulting in continuous curve deterioration. By age 16.2 yrs., the thoracic curve grew to 60° (d) and corrective surgery was recommended