Stefano Negrini1, Sabrina Donzelli2, Alessandra Negrini2, Silvana Parzini2, Michele Romano2, Fabio Zaina2. 1. Clinical and Experimental Sciences Department, University of Brescia, 25121 Brescia, Italy; IRCCS Fondazione Don Carlo Gnocchi, Milan, Italy. Electronic address: stefano.negrini@unibs.it. 2. ISICO (Italian Scientific Spine Institute), Via Roberto Bellarmino 13/1, 20141 Milan, Italy.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In an ideal experimental setting, 2 randomized controlled trials recently showed the efficacy of physiotherapeutic scoliosis-specific exercises (PSSEs) for adolescents with idiopathic scoliosis (AIS). Now large observational studies are needed to check the generalizability of these results to everyday clinical life. OBJECTIVE: To explore the effectiveness of PSSEs for avoiding bracing or progression of AIS in everyday clinics. METHODS: This was a longitudinal comparative observational multicenter study, nested in a prospective database of outpatient tertiary referral clinics, including 327 consecutive patients. Inclusion criteria were AIS, age≥10 years old at first evaluation, Risser sign 0-2, and 11-20°Cobbangle. Exclusion criteria were consultations only and brace prescription at baseline. Groups performed PSSE according to the SEAS (Scientific Exercise Approach to Scoliosis) School, usual physiotherapy (UP) and no therapy (controls [CON]). End of treatment was medical discharge, Risser sign 3, or failure (defined by the need for bracing before the end of growth or Cobb angle>29°). The probability of failure was estimated by the risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). The number needed to treat was estimated. Statistical analysis included intent-to-treat analysis, considering all participants (dropouts as failures), and efficacy analysis, considering only end-of-treatment participants. Propensity scores were used to reduce the potential effects of confounders related to the observational design. RESULTS: We included 293 eligible subjects after propensity score matching (SEAS, n=145; UP, n=95; controls, n=53). The risk of success was increased 1.7-fold (P=0.007) and 1.5-fold (P=0.006) with SEAS versus controls in the efficacy and intent-to-treat analyses, respectively, and the number needed to treat for testing SEAS versus controls was 3.5 (95% CI 3.2-3.7) and 1.8 (95% CI 1.5-2.0), respectively. The success rate was higher with SEAS than UP in the efficacy analysis. CONCLUSIONS: SEAS reduced the bracing rate in AIS and was more effective than UP. PSSEs are additional tools that can be included in the therapeutic toolbox for AIS treatment.
BACKGROUND: In an ideal experimental setting, 2 randomized controlled trials recently showed the efficacy of physiotherapeutic scoliosis-specific exercises (PSSEs) for adolescents with idiopathic scoliosis (AIS). Now large observational studies are needed to check the generalizability of these results to everyday clinical life. OBJECTIVE: To explore the effectiveness of PSSEs for avoiding bracing or progression of AIS in everyday clinics. METHODS: This was a longitudinal comparative observational multicenter study, nested in a prospective database of outpatient tertiary referral clinics, including 327 consecutive patients. Inclusion criteria were AIS, age≥10 years old at first evaluation, Risser sign 0-2, and 11-20°Cobbangle. Exclusion criteria were consultations only and brace prescription at baseline. Groups performed PSSE according to the SEAS (Scientific Exercise Approach to Scoliosis) School, usual physiotherapy (UP) and no therapy (controls [CON]). End of treatment was medical discharge, Risser sign 3, or failure (defined by the need for bracing before the end of growth or Cobb angle>29°). The probability of failure was estimated by the risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). The number needed to treat was estimated. Statistical analysis included intent-to-treat analysis, considering all participants (dropouts as failures), and efficacy analysis, considering only end-of-treatment participants. Propensity scores were used to reduce the potential effects of confounders related to the observational design. RESULTS: We included 293 eligible subjects after propensity score matching (SEAS, n=145; UP, n=95; controls, n=53). The risk of success was increased 1.7-fold (P=0.007) and 1.5-fold (P=0.006) with SEAS versus controls in the efficacy and intent-to-treat analyses, respectively, and the number needed to treat for testing SEAS versus controls was 3.5 (95% CI 3.2-3.7) and 1.8 (95% CI 1.5-2.0), respectively. The success rate was higher with SEAS than UP in the efficacy analysis. CONCLUSIONS: SEAS reduced the bracing rate in AIS and was more effective than UP. PSSEs are additional tools that can be included in the therapeutic toolbox for AIS treatment.
Authors: Vaiva Seleviciene; Aiste Cesnaviciute; Birute Strukcinskiene; Ludmiła Marcinowicz; Neringa Strazdiene; Agnieszka Genowska Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-07-28 Impact factor: 4.614