Table 1.
Literature review of the clinical results under SRS criteria
| Author (Year) | Treatment period | Type of brace | Success rate | Progression rate for surgical indication |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coillard C et al. (2007) [10] | ? | SpiceCorBrace | 59.4%** | 24.1%+ |
| Janicki JA et al. (2007) [20] | 1y5m | TLSO | 85.4%* | 62.4%+ |
| 1y4m | Providence | 68.6%* | 42.9%+ | |
| Negrini S et al. (2009) [13] | 4y2m | Lyon, SPoRT | 95.8%** | 0.0%+ |
| Aulisa AG et al. (2009) [21] | 4y11m | Progressive Action Short Brace | 100.0%* | 0.0%+ |
| Zaborowska-Sapeta K et al. (2011) [22] | 2y8m | Chêneau brace | 48.1%* | 12.7%++ |
| Lee CS et al. (2012) [6] | 2y9m | Chaleston Bending Brace | 84.2%** | 12.6%+ |
| Aulisa AG et al. (2012) [23] | 3y6m | Progressive Action Short Brace | 100.0%* | 0.0%+ |
| Weinstein SL et al. (2013) [12,24] | ? | TLSO | _ | 28.1%++ |
| Maruyama T et al. (2013) [25] | 1y9m | Rigo-Chêneau brace | 70.8%** | 18.2%+ |
| Kuroki H et al. (2015) [current report] | 3y4m | Osaka Medical College Brace | 67.7%** | 9.7%+ |
*progression < 5°, **progression < 6°, +progression ≥ 45°, ++progression ≥ 50°.