Literature DB >> 8698723

Adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: treatment with the Wilmington brace. A comparison of full-time and part-time use.

N J Allington1, J R Bowen.   

Abstract

We reviewed the clinical records and the radiographs of 188 patients who had adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Our purpose was to determine whether part-time and full-time bracing had been equally effective in preventing progression of the curve. Full-time bracing had been used for ninety-eight patients; part-time bracing, for forty-nine; and electrical stimulation, for forty-one. Eighty-eight patients had had a curve of less than 30 degrees and 100 patients, a curve of 30 to 40 degrees. The treatment was considered a failure if the curve had increased 5 degrees or more. The curve progressed 5 degrees or more in thirteen (36 per cent) of the thirty-six patients who had had full-time bracing for a curve of less than 30 degrees, in thirteen (41 per cent) of the thirty-two who had had part-time bracing for such a curve, and in fourteen (70 per cent) of the twenty who had had electrical stimulation for such a curve. Compared with electrical stimulation, both full-time and part-time bracing prevented progression significantly more effectively (p < 0.02 and p < 0.04, respectively). With the numbers available, the difference in progression between the groups that had had full-time and parttime bracing was not significant (p < 0.18). The curve progressed 5 degrees or more in thirty-six (58 per cent) of the sixty-two patients who had had full-time bracing for a curve of 30 to 40 degrees, in ten of the seventeen who had had part-time bracing for such a curve, and in eighteen (86 per cent) of the twenty-one who had had electrical stimulation for such a curve. The difference in progression between each bracing program and electrical stimulation was significant (p < 0.03 for the full-time program and p < 0.05 for the part-time program). With the numbers available, the difference in progression between full-time and part-time bracing was not significant (p < 1.14).

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1996        PMID: 8698723

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am        ISSN: 0021-9355            Impact factor:   5.284


  18 in total

1.  Design of the Bracing in Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis Trial (BrAIST).

Authors:  Stuart L Weinstein; Lori A Dolan; James G Wright; Matthew B Dobbs
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2013-10-01       Impact factor: 3.468

2.  Professional opinion concerning the effectiveness of bracing relative to observation in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis.

Authors:  Lori A Dolan; Melanie J Donnelly; Kevin F Spratt; Stuart L Weinstein
Journal:  J Pediatr Orthop       Date:  2007 Apr-May       Impact factor: 2.324

3.  [Compliance as a prognostic factor in the treatment of idiopathic scoliosis].

Authors:  J Seifert; A Selle; C Flieger; K P Günther
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2009-02       Impact factor: 1.087

4.  Nonfusion treatment of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis by growth modulation and remodeling.

Authors:  David D Aronsson; Ian A F Stokes
Journal:  J Pediatr Orthop       Date:  2011 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 2.324

Review 5.  Adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: indications for bracing and conservative treatments.

Authors:  André J Kaelin
Journal:  Ann Transl Med       Date:  2020-01

6.  Preference assessment of recruitment into a randomized trial for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis.

Authors:  Lori A Dolan; Vani Sabesan; Stuart L Weinstein; Kevin F Spratt
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2008-12       Impact factor: 5.284

7.  Does brace treatment impact upon the flexibility and the correctability of idiopathic scoliosis in adolescents?

Authors:  Xu Sun; Wen-jun Liu; Lei-lei Xu; Qi Ding; Sai-hu Mao; Bang-ping Qian; Ze-zhang Zhu; Yong Qiu
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2012-08-23       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 8.  Brace management in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis.

Authors:  Jonathan R Schiller; Nikhil A Thakur; Craig P Eberson
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2009-05-30       Impact factor: 4.176

Review 9.  A history of bracing for idiopathic scoliosis in North America.

Authors:  Reginald S Fayssoux; Robert H Cho; Martin J Herman
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2009-05-22       Impact factor: 4.176

10.  Scoliosis in-brace curve correction and patient preference of CAD/CAM versus plaster molded TLSOs.

Authors:  Wudbhav N Sankar; Josh Albrektson; Lawrence Lerman; Vernon T Tolo; David L Skaggs
Journal:  J Child Orthop       Date:  2007-11-21       Impact factor: 1.548

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.