Table 1.
Level Of Evidence Of The Predictive Factors For Bracing
| Predictive Factor | Study | Level Of Evidence | Treatment Success | Treatment Failure |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| In-brace correction | Katz and Durani38 | III | Min 25% IBC for double curves | |
| Castro et al39 | II | Min 20% IBC to recommend bracing | ||
| Landauer et al40 | IV | IBC >40% and good compliance | ||
| Weiss and Rigo41 | IV | Positive, no values mentioned | ||
| Goodbody et al42 | III | IBC<45% | ||
| Xu et al43 | III | Min 10% IBC | ||
| Weiss et al29 | III | Average 66% IBC and success rate | ||
| De Mauroy et al44 | II | Average IBC 70% and success rate | ||
| Van de Bogaart et al45 (SR) | NA | Strong evidence | ||
| El Hawary et al46 (SR) | NA | Level of Evidence III | ||
| Compliance | Weinstein et al5 | I | Average 12.9 hrs, dose-effect response of bracing | |
| Rowe et al47 (meta-analysis) | NA | Proportion of success: 0.93 for 23 hrs, 0.6 for 8 hrs, 0.62 for 16 hrs |
||
| Katz and Durani38 | III | Min 18h decrease likelihood of progression | ||
| Landauer et al40 | IV | Bad compliance correlated with curve progression | ||
| Rahman et al48 | II | 11% failure for compliant (>90% of prescription) | 56% failure for non-compliant (< 90% of prescription) | |
| Brox et al49 | II | 19.5% failure for compliant (>20 hrs) | 55.7% failure for non-compliant (<20 hrs) | |
| Aulisa et al50 | II | 94.3% success in compliant (min 18 hrs) | 41.3% progression in non-compliant | |
| Kuroki et al51 | III | 67.7% success for compliant (>15 hrs) | ||
| Karol et al52,53 | II | Patients at Risser 0, min 18 hrs prescription | ||
| Thompson et al55 | III | 30% progression >50ο in compliant (>13 hrs) | ||
| Lou et al54,59,60 | II | Prognostic model: Cobb angle, risk for progression, IBC, quantity and quality of bracing | ||
| Van de Bogaart et al45 (SR) | NA | Moderate evidence | ||
| El Hawary et al46 (SR) | NA | Level of Evidence I | ||
| Curve magnitude | Emans et al61 | III | Higher initial curve increase surgery rate | |
| Katz and Durani38 | III | Double curves >35ο | ||
| Sun et al62 | III | Cobb angle >30ο | ||
| Ovadia et al63 | III | Low baseline Cobb angle, less progression | ||
| Karol et al53 | II | No correlation, Insignificantly lower success rate for Cobb 20ο–30ο than >30ο | ||
| Xu et al64 | III | No correlation | ||
| Sun et al65 | III | No correlation | ||
| Van de Bogaart et al45 (SR) | NA | Limited evidence that curve magnitude is not related to treatment success | Moderate evidence that curve magnitude is not related to treatment failure | |
| El Hawary et al46 (SR) | NA | Level of Evidence II Cobb angle >30ο |
||
| Curve type | Emans et61 | III | Apex T8-L2 better IBC and control | |
| Katz and Durani38 | III | Double curves, thoracic Cobb >35ο | ||
| Sun et al62 | ΙΙΙ | Cobb angle >30ο | ||
| Thompson et al55 | ΙΙΙ | Cobb angle >30ο | ||
| Kuroki et al51 | III | No correlation | ||
| Sun et al65 | III | No correlation | ||
| Xu et al64 | III | No correlation | ||
| Van de Bogaart et al45 (SR) | NA | Moderate evidence | ||
| El Hawary et al46 (SR) | NA | Level of Evidence II | ||
| Growth stage | Hanks et al66 | Risser sign and menarche significant prognostic factors. Recommended no bracing > Risser 1 | ||
| Sun et al62 | III | Lower Risser grade and pre-menarche significant factors | ||
| Sun et al65 | III | Lower Risser grade and pre-menarche not significant factors | ||
| Ovadia et al63 | III | High Risser score | ||
| Aulisa et al50 | II | Low Risser sign | ||
| Xu et al64 | III | Low Risser sign | ||
| Karol et al53 | II | Risser 0 and OTC Risser 0- & Cobb >30ο 63% progression risk, Risser 0+ & Cobb>30ο 32.4% progression risk |
||
| Katz and Durani38 | III | No correlation | ||
| Kuroki et al51 | III | No correlation | ||
| Xu et al64 | III | No correlation | ||
| O’Neill et al67 | III | No correlation | ||
| Dolan et al68 | II | Sanders scale + Cobb + treatment give best fitting-prediction model | ||
| Van de Bogaart et al45 (SR) | NA | Conflicting evidence for growth stage and menarche | ||
| El Hawary et al46 (SR) | NA | Level of Evidence II Low Risser |
||
| BMI | O’Neill et al67 | III | Over-weight 3.1 times more likely to fail | |
| Gilbert et al80 | III | High BMI frequently late diagnosed, but not more likely to surgery | ||
| Goodbody et al41 | III | High and low BMI more likely to fail, compliant not significant | ||
| Sun et al64 | III | Low BMI prognostic factor for failure | ||
| Vachon et al81 | III | No correlation | ||
| Zaina et al82 | III | No correlation | ||
| Van de Bogaart et al45 (SR) | NA | Limited evidence for low BMI, conflicting evidence for high BMI | ||
| Rotation (Vertebra and Trunk) | Upadhyay et al83 | III | Reduction of in-brace rotation | |
| Ovadia et al63 | III | Low ATR | ||
| Yamane et al84 | III | Insufficient in-brace rotation correction | ||
| Lumbar Pelvic relationship (LPR) | Katz and Durani38 | III | LPR>12ο | |
| Erα and TPH-1 genes | Xu et al85 | III | Potential predictors of brace outcome | |
| Initial Cobb Angle Reduction Velocity | Mao et al86 | III | ARV better predictor than IBC | |
| Osteopenia | El Hawary et al46 (SR) | NA | Level of Evidence II |
Abbreviations: ARV, Angle Reduction Velocity; ATR, Angle Trunk Rotation; BMI, Body Mass Index; IBC, In-Brace Correction; LPR, Lumbar Pelvic Relationship; NA, Not Applicable; SR, Systematic Review.