ReviewCureus2026
Variability in Bracing Design and Bracing Protocols for the Non-Operative Management of Legg-Calvé-Perthes Disease: A Scoping Systematic Review.
Review in Cureus, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Legg-Calvé-Perthes disease (LCPD) is a self-limiting avascular necrosis of the femoral head in children, with management aimed at preserving hip joint congruency and reducing the risk of long-term degenerative changes. Bracing is a commonly used containment strategy; however, its effectiveness remains controversial owing to variation in brace design, biomechanical principles, and treatment protocols. This systematic review evaluates and synthesizes the variability in bracing design and bracing protocols for non-operative management of LCPD. This review adhered to the PRISMA-ScR guidelines. A comprehensive search of PubMed, Scopus, Science Citation Index, and Google Scholar was performed using keywords such as "Perthes" OR "Coxa Plana" and "treatment" OR "non-operative" OR "orthoses" OR "conservative" OR "brace". Only full-text articles in English were included. Studies were required to document initial radiographs using the Catterall or Herring classification and assess outcomes with the Mose or Stulberg criteria. Exclusion criteria included non-English language articles and research with inadequate methodology. Patient demographics, therapy type, type of bracing, and radiological results were among the information retrieved. Radiographic results were classified as good or poor using the Mose and Stulberg ratings. A total of 12 studies were examined to determine the efficacy of conservative treatments, especially bracing, for LCPD. Age of onset was a key prognostic factor, with better outcomes indicated in children under the age of eight. Bracing was more beneficial in younger individuals with milder illness, although adherence was crucial. Various braces, including the Atlanta Scottish Rite, trilateral socket, and non-weight-bearing ambulatory hip abduction brace, have been developed to maintain hip abduction. However, limitations such as discomfort, poor adherence, reduced mobility, and inconsistent radiological and clinical outcomes undermine their efficacy. Additionally, significant variability exists in indications, duration, and patient selection, with no universally accepted bracing protocol. Despite theoretical containment advantages, the effectiveness of bracing in LCPD remains inconclusive due to heterogeneity in brace designs, patient selection, and treatment protocols, as well as limitations in the underlying evidence base. Further prospective, methodologically robust studies with standardized protocols and transparent reporting of adherence are needed to clarify the role of bracing in clinically meaningful outcomes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.