A correlation study between in-brace correction, compliance to spinal orthosis and health-related quality of life of patients with Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis

Siu Ling Chan, Kenneth Mc Cheung, Keith Dk Luk, Kenneth Wh Wong, Man Sang Wong, Siu Ling Chan, Kenneth Mc Cheung, Keith Dk Luk, Kenneth Wh Wong, Man Sang Wong

Abstract

Background: It has been proposed that in-brace correction is the best guideline for prediction of the results of brace treatment for patients with Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis (AIS). However, bracing may be a stressful experience for patients and bracing non-compliance could be psychologically related. The purpose of this study was to assess the correlation between brace compliance, in-brace correction and QoL of patients with AIS.

Methods: Fifty-five patients with a diagnosis of AIS were recruited. All were female and aged 10 years or above when a brace was prescribed, none had undergone prior treatment, and all had a Risser sign of 0-2 and a Cobb angle of 25-40°. The patients were examined in three consecutive visits with 4 to 6 months between each visit. The Chinese translated Trunk Appearance Perception Scale (TAPS), the Chinese translated Brace Questionnaires (BrQ) and the Chinese translated SRS-22 Questionnaires were used in the study. The in-brace Cobb angle, vertebral rotation and trunk listing were also measured. Patients' compliance, in-brace correction and patients' QoL were assessed. To identify the relationship among these three areas, logistic regression model and generalized linear model were used.

Result: For the compliance measure, a significant difference (p = 0.008) was detected on TAPS mean score difference between Visit 1 and Visit 2 in the least compliant group (0-8 hours) and the most compliant group (17-23 hours). In addition, a significant difference (p = 0.000) was detected on BrQ mean score difference between Visit 2 and Visit 3 in the least compliant group (0-8 hours) and the most compliant group (17-23 hours). For the orthosis effectiveness measure, no significant difference was detected between the three groups of bracing hours (0-8 hours, 9-16 hours, 17-23 hours) on in-brace correction (below 40% and 40% or above). For the QoL measure, no significant difference was detected between the two different in-brace correction groups (below 40% and 40% or above) on QoL as reflected by the TAPS, BrQ and SRS-22r mean scores.

Conclusion: The results showed a positive relationship between patients' brace wear compliance and patients' QoL. Poor compliance would cause a lower QoL.

References

    1. Kim D, Betz R, Huhn SL, Newton PO. Surgery of pediatric spine. Germany: Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.; 2008.
    1. Weinstein SL, Dolan LA, Wright JG, Dobbs MB. Effects of bracing in adolescents with idiopathic scoliosis. N Engl J Med. 2013;369:1512–1521. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1307337.
    1. Landauer F, Wimmer C, Behensky H. Estimating the final outcome of brace treatment for idiopathic thoracic scoliosis at 6-month follow-up. Pediatr Rehabil. 2003;6(3–4):201–7.
    1. Weiss HR. Rehabilitation of adolescent patients with scoliosis – what do we know? A review of the literature. Pediatr Rehabil. 2003;6(3–4):183–194.
    1. Rivett L, Rothberg A, Stewart A, Berkowitz R. The relationship between quality of life and compliance to a brace protocol in adolescents with idiopathic scoliosis: a comparative study. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2009;10:5.
    1. Asher M, Lai SM, Burton D, Manna B. The reliability and concurrent validity of the Scoliosis Research Society-22 patient questionnaire for idiopathic scoliosis. Spine. 2003;28(1):63–69. doi: 10.1097/00007632-200301010-00015.
    1. Vasiliadis E, Grivas TB, Gkoltsiou K. Development and preliminary validation of Brace Questionnaire (BrQ): a new instrument for measuring quality of life of brace treated scoliotics. Scoliosis. 2006;1:7. doi: 10.1186/1748-7161-1-7.
    1. Srinivasalu S, Modi HN, Smehta S, Suh SW, Chen T, Murun T. Cobb angle measurement of Scoliosis using computer measurement of digitally acquired radiographs – Intraobserver and interobserver variability. Asian Spine J. 2008;2(2):90–93. doi: 10.4184/asj.2008.2.2.90.
    1. Kuklo TR, Potter BK, Schroeder TM, O’Brien MF. Comparison of manual and digital measurements in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Spine. 2006;31(11):1240–6. doi: 10.1097/01.brs.0000217774.13433.a7.
    1. Shea KG, Stevens PM, Nelson M, Smith JT, Masters KS, Yandow S. A comparison of manual versus computer-assisted radiographic measurement: Intraobserver measurement variability for Cobb angles. Spine. 1998;23(5):551–5. doi: 10.1097/00007632-199803010-00007.
    1. Gstoettner M, Sekyra K, Walochnik N, Winter P, Wachter R, Bach CM. Inter- and intraobserver reliability assessment of the Cobb angle: manual versus digital measurement tools. Eur Spine J. 2007;16(10):1587–92. doi: 10.1007/s00586-007-0401-3.
    1. Morrissy RT, Goldsmith GS, Hall EC, Kehl D, Cowie GH. Measurement of the Cobb angle on radiographs of patients who have scoliosis: Evaluation of intrinsic error. JBJS. 1990;72-A(3):320–7.
    1. Weiss HR. Measurement of vertebral rotation: perdriolle versus Raimondi. Eur Spine J. 1995;4:34–38. doi: 10.1007/BF00298416.
    1. McLean IP, Gillan MGC, Ross JC, Aspden RM, Porter RW. A comparison of methods for measuring trunk list: a simple plumbline is the best. Spine. 1996;21(14):1667–70. doi: 10.1097/00007632-199607150-00011.
    1. Kinel E, Kotwicki T, Stryla W, Szulc A. Adolescent girls with idiopathic scoliosis < 40 degrees, treated with TLSO brace, reveal less clinical deformity than non-treated girls having similar scoliosis angle. Scoliosis. 2007;2(Suppl 1):S16. doi: 10.1186/1748-7161-2-S1-S16.
    1. Rahman T, Bowen JR, Takemitsu M, Scott C. The association between brace compliance and outcome for patients with idiopathic scoliosis. J Pediatr Orthop. 2005;25(4):420–2. doi: 10.1097/.
    1. Weiss HR, Rigo M. Expert-driven cheneau applications: description and in-brace corrections. Physiother Theory Pract. 2011;27(1):61–7. doi: 10.3109/09593985.2010.503991.
    1. Borysov M, Borysov A, Kleban A, Weiss HR. Bracing according to “best practice” standards – are the results repeatable? OA Musculoskelet Med. 2013;1(1):6.
    1. Grivas TB, Kaspiris A. European braces widely used for conservative scoliosis treatment. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2010;158:157–66.
    1. Weiss HR. Is there a body of evidence for the treatment of patients with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS)? Scoliosis. 2007;2:19. doi: 10.1186/1748-7161-2-19.
    1. Perdriolle R, Vidal J. Thoracic idiopathic scoliosis curve evaluation and prognosis. Spine. 1985;10(9):785–91. doi: 10.1097/00007632-198511000-00001.
    1. Leathermann K, Dickson R. The Management Of Spinal Deformities. London: Wright Press; 1998.
    1. Borders C. After bypass: new life, new life-style – the patients’ view. Patient Care. 1986;19:65–93.
    1. Hawes M. Scoliosis And The Human Spine. West Press: USA; 2002.
    1. Bago J, Sanchez-Raya J, Javier Sanchez Perez-Grueso F, Climent JM. The Trunk Appearance Perception Scale (TAPS): a new tool to evaluate subjective impression of trunk deformity in patients with idiopathic scoliosis. Scoliosis. 2010;5:6. doi: 10.1186/1748-7161-5-6.
    1. Asher M, Burton D. Adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: natural history and long term side effects. Scoliosis. 2006;1:2. doi: 10.1186/1748-7161-1-2.
    1. Ugwonali OF, Lomas G, Choe JC, Hyman JE, Lee FY, Vitale MG, Roye DP. Effect of bracing on the quality of life of adolescents with idiopathic scoliosis. Spine. 2004;4:254–60. doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2003.12.001.
    1. Feise RJ, Donaldson S, Crowther ER, Menke JM, Wright JG. Construction and validation of the Scoliosis Quality of Life Index in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Spine. 2005;30(11):1310–15. doi: 10.1097/.
    1. Beaton DE, Bombardier C, Guillemin F, Ferraz MB. Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures. Spine. 2000;25(24):3186–91. doi: 10.1097/00007632-200012150-00014.
    1. Edgar M. Brace Wear Compliance. SRS Brace Manual. 1998. .
    1. Tavernaro M, Pellegrini A, Tessadri F, Zaina F, Zonta A, Negrini S. Team care to cure adolescents with braces (avoiding low quality of life, pain and bad compliance): a case–control retrospective study. 2011 SOSORT award winner. Scoliosis. 2012;7(1):7. doi: 10.1186/1748-7161-7-7. .
    1. Freidee K, Reichel D, Steiner A, Warschburger P, Petermann F, Weiss HR. Idiopathic scoliosis and quality of life. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2002;88:24–9.
    1. Reichel D, Schanz J. Developmental psychological aspects of scoliosis treatment. Pediatr Rehabil. 2003;6(3–4):221–5.
    1. Deviren V, Berven S, Kleinstueck F, Antinnes J, Smith JA, Hu SS. Predictors of flexibility and pain patterns in thoracolumbar and lumbar idiopathic scoliosis. Spine. 2002;27:387–92. doi: 10.1097/00007632-200202150-00012.
    1. Aulisa AG, Guzzanti V, Perisano C, Marzetti E, Specchia A, Giordano M, Aulisa L. Determination of quality of life in adolescents with idiopathic scoliosis subjected to conservative treatment. Scoliosis. 2010;5:21. doi: 10.1186/1748-7161-5-21.
    1. Richards BS, Bernstein RM, D’Amato CR, Thompson GH. Standardization of criteria for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis brace studies: SRS Committee on bracing and nonoperative management. Spine. 2005;30(18):2069–75.
    1. Knott P, Techy F, Cotter T, Jansen L, Kove P, Loving J, Poletis K, Mardjetlko S. Retrospective analysis of immediate in-brace correction of scoliosis attainable in patients with AIS: A SOSORT initiative. Scoliosis. 2013;8(Suppl 1):O49.
    1. Takemitsu M, Bowen JR, Rahman T, Glutting JJ, Scott CB. Compliance monitoring of brace treatment for patients with idiopathic scoliosis. Spine. 2004;29(18):2070–4. doi: 10.1097/01.brs.0000138280.43663.7b.

Source: PubMed

Sponsorit ja yhteistyökumppanit

Sairaudet

Huumeiden interventiot

3
Tilaa