ArticlePediatric surgery international2026
A single-center experience with orthotic bracing for children with pectus carinatum.
Article in Pediatric surgery international, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundBracing therapy is a first-line non-surgical treatment for pectus carinatum , but standardized protocols, measurement of initial corrective pressure, particularly regarding wearing intensity, are lacking. This study compares the efficacy, compliance, and patient satisfaction between high-intensity and low-intensity bracing regimens in young children with pectus carinatum, utilizing three-dimensional surface scanning for objective assessment, and propose a standard measurement of initial corrective pressure.
methodsFrom January 2021 to January 2025, 208 children under six years of age with pectus carinatum were enrolled and categorized into two groups based on daily brace-wearing time: a high-intensity group (>16 hours/day, n=98) and a low-intensity group (8–12 hours/day, n=110). All patients received orthotic braces. Treatment progress was monitored bimonthly using 3D scanning to measure the External Haller Index. Outcomes included correction success, treatment duration, complication rates, adherence, and patient/parent satisfaction assessed via the Pectus Carinatum Evaluation Questionnaire (PCEQ).
resultsFinal success rates were comparable between the low-intensity and high-intensity groups (86.3% vs. 89.8%, p>0.05), with no significant difference in median correction time (7.5 ± 0.8 months vs. 7.3± 0.9 months, p=0.321). The high-intensity group showed significantly greater EHI improvement at the 2-month follow-up (1.24 ± 0.11 vs.1.18 ± 0.13, p<0.05), but this difference disappeared by 4 months(1.27± 0.08 vs.1.25 ± 0.09, p=0.093). The low-intensity group demonstrated significantly better treatment compliance (95.6% vs. 89.1%, p<0.05) and higher post-treatment satisfaction scores (4.5±0.3 vs. 4.2±0.4, p<0.05). Complication rates were low overall (7.2%) and predominantly mild, with slightly fewer complications in the low-intensity group. One case (0.5%) of recurrence was successfully managed with brief resumed bracing.
conclusionA low-intensity bracing regimen achieves long-term correction efficacy comparable to a high-intensity regimen without prolonging treatment duration, while significantly improving patient compliance and satisfaction. The use of 3D scanning to standardize initial corrective pressure provides an objective benchmark for pressure adjustment. These findings support a paradigm shift towards patient-centered, low-intensity bracing strategies for pediatric PC, prioritizing tolerability and adherence to optimize overall outcomes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41984090What 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.