Search

Background: The Sforzesco brace is a very rigid push-up brace effective in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS). We recently developed a new Sforzesco brace based on modularity (the Modular Italian brace—MI brace) that could allow standardization, facilitating global expertise diffusion, increased modifiability and adaptability, and cost savings due to longer brace life. We aimed to compare the short-term results of the two braces. Methods: The retrospective study included 231 consecutive AIS treated with a MI brace (N = 53) or Sforzesco brace (N = 178). The main outcome was the first 6-month follow-up out-of-brace radiograph Cobb angle change. Secondary outcomes included the in-brace Cobb degrees and aesthetics (TRACE), prominence (angle of trunk rotation and mm), kyphosis, and lordosis changes. Results: The two groups were similar at baseline, apart from more immature patients in MI brace. Both braces reduced the Cobb angle (−6° out-of-brace; −16° in-brace) without differences between groups. All secondary outcomes improved, apart from a statistically and clinically insignificant 3° kyphosis reduction. The MI brace participants were 4.9 times more likely to improve the Cobb angle than the Sforzesco brace (OR = 4.92; 95%CI 1.91–12.64; p = 0.001). Conclusions: These findings suggest that the MI-brace can be safely used instead of the classical Sforzesco brace. However, further studies of different designs and longer follow-ups are needed to confirm these findings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We introduced pelvis semi-rigid material (ethylene vinyl acetate) (Free-Pelvis) to improve the comfort and adaptability of very rigid braces (VRBs) for adolescents with idiopathic scoliosis (AIS), but this can also negatively impact the corrective forces on the trunk. Study Design: This was a matched retrospective cohort study. The inclusion criteria were AIS, age 10–16, VRB 23 h/day, X-rays available, primary curve 36°–65°, and angle of trunk rotation 7–23°. The cases were Sforzesco VRB with Free-Pelvis (FPB). The controls included classical Sforzesco VRB matched for Risser (range 0/4), menarche age (10/15), weight (33.5/83 kg), height (140/180 cm), BMI (13.5/29 kg/sqm), aesthetics (TRACE 4/12), plumbline distances (S1: −60/35; C7 + L3: −10/115 mm), and referred brace use (22/24 h/day). Statistics: predictors of the results have been tested with linear and logistic regression according to the outcome variable type. We performed logistic regression for improved vs. worsened. The explanatory variable was brace type. We included 777 VRB and 25 FPB, age 13 ± 1, 47° ± 8° Cobb, and 11% men. The few baseline statistical differences were not clinically relevant. We achieved in-brace corrections of 15.2° ± 7.7° and 17.4° ± 6.5° for VRB and FPB, respectively (p = 0.21); out-of-brace corrections at 5 ± 2 months were 7.8° ± 0.2° for VRB and 8.1° ± 1.3° for FPB (p = 0.83). The type of brace did not influence the Cobb angle at either time interval or affect the odds of improvement. Free-Pelvis innovation, introduced to improve comfort and adaptability, does not change the in-brace or short-term results of classical VRB and consequently can be safely applied. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]