ArticleSpine deformity2024
Improvement in axial rotation with bracing reduces the risk of curve progression in patients with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis.
Article in Spine deformity, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Accuracy of vertebral rotation assessment using biplanar imaging technology in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis.Spine deformity · 2026Article
- 2D and 3D Classification Systems for Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis: Clinical Implications and Technological Advances.Orthopaedic surgery · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeNew evidence highlights the significance of 3D in-brace correction for Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis (AIS) patients. This study explores how axial parameters relate to treatment failure in braced AIS patients.
methodsAIS patients (Sanders 1-5) undergoing Rigo-Chêneau bracing at a single institution were included. Axial vertebral rotation (AVR) was determined by utilizing pre-brace and in-brace 3D reconstructions from EOS® radiographs. The primary outcome was treatment failure: surgery or coronal curve progression > 5°. Minimum follow-up was two years.
results75 patients (81% female) were included. Mean age at bracing initiation was 12.8 ± 1.3 years and patients had a pre-brace major curve of 31.0° ± 6.5°. 25 patients (76% female) experienced curve progression > 5°, and 18/25 required surgical intervention. The treatment failure group had larger in-brace AVR than the success group (5.8° ± 4.1° vs. 9.9° ± 7.6°, p = 0.003), but also larger initial coronal curve measures. In-brace AVR did not appear to be associated with treatment failure after adjusting for the pre-brace major curve (Hazard Ratio (HR):0.99, 95% Confidence Interval (CI):0.94-1.05, p = 0.833). Adjusting for pre-brace major curve, patients with AVR improvement with bracing had an 85% risk reduction in treatment failure versus those without (HR:0.15, 95% CI:0.02-1.13, p = 0.066). At the final follow-up, 42/50 (84%) patients without progression had Sanders ≥ 7.
conclusionsWhile in-brace rotation was not an independent predictor of curve progression (due to its correlation with curve magnitude), improved AVR with bracing was a significant predictor of curve progression. This study is the first step toward investigating the interplay between 3D parameters, skeletal maturity, compliance, and brace efficacy, allowing a future prospective multicenter study. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Retrospective study; Level III.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38698106What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.