Search

Currently, there are no published studies that compare non-pharmacological, pharmacological and invasive treatments for chronic low back pain in adults and provide summary statistics for benefits and harms.The aim of this review was to compare the benefits and harms of treatments for the management of chronic low back pain without radiculopathy and to report the findings in a format that facilitates direct comparison (Benefit-Harm Scale: level 1 to 7).Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials, including trial registries, from electronic databases up to 23Adults with non-specific chronic low back pain, excluding radicular pain in any clinical setting.Comparison of pain at immediate-term (≤2 weeks) and short-term (2 weeks to ≤12 weeks) and serious adverse events using the Benefit-Harm Scale (level 1 to 7).This was a registered systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Interventions included non-pharmacological (acupuncture, spinal manipulation only), pharmacological and invasive treatments compared to placebo. Best evidence criteria was used. Two independent reviewers conducted eligibility assessment, data extraction and quality appraisal.The search retrieved 17,362 records. Three studies provided data on the benefits of interventions, and 30 provided data on harms. Studies included interventions of acupuncture (n = 8); manipulation (n = 2); pharmacological therapies (n = 9), including NSAIDs and opioid analgesics; surgery (n = 8); and epidural corticosteroid injections (n = 3). Acupuncture (standardized mean difference (SMD) -0.51, 95%CI -0.88 to -0.14, n = 1 trial, moderate quality of evidence, benefit rating of 3) and manipulation (SMD -0.39 (96%CI -0.56 to -0.21, n = 2 trials, moderate quality of evidence, benefit rating of 5) were effective in reducing pain intensity compared to sham. The benefit of the other interventions was scored as uncertain due to not being effective, statistical heterogeneity preventing pooling of effect sizes, or the absence of relevant trials. The harms level warnings were at the lowest (e.g. indicating rarer risk of events) for acupuncture, spinal manipulation, NSAIDs, combination ingredient opioids, and steroid injections, while they were higher for single ingredient opioid analgesics (level 4) and surgery (level 6).There is uncertainty about the benefits and harms of all the interventions reviewed due to the lack of trials conducted in patients with chronic non-specific low back pain without radiculopathy. From the limited trials conducted, non-pharmacological interventions of acupuncture and spinal manipulation provide safer benefits than pharmacological or invasive interventions. However, more research is needed. There were high harms ratings for opioids and surgery.This review was registered on the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews.

Purpose Some teenagers with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) display compromised lung function. However, the evidence regarding the relations between pulmonary impairments and various spinal deformity parameters in these patients remains unclear, which affects clinical management. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to summarize the associations between various lung function parameters and radiographic features in teenagers with AIS. Methods A search of PubMed, Embase, PEDro, SPORTDiscus, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, and PsycINFO (from inception to March 14, 2022) without language restriction. Original studies reporting the associations between lung function and spinal deformity in patients with AIS were selected. Independent reviewers extracted data and evaluated the methodological quality of the included studies according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Pearson correlation and 95% confidence intervals were calculated using random-effects meta-analysis. Results Twenty-seven studies involving 3162 participants were included. Limited-quality evidence supported that several spinal parameters were significantly related to lung function parameters (e.g., absolute value and percent of the predicted forced vital capacity (FVC; %FVC), forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1; %FEV1), and total lung capacity (TLC; %TLC)) in AIS patients. Specifically, meta-analyses showed that main thoracic Cobb angles in the coronal plane were significantly and negatively related to FVC (r = − 0.245), %FVC (r = − 0.302), FEV1 (r = − 0.232), %FEV1 (r = − 0.348), FEV1/FVC ratio (r = − 0.166), TLC (r = − 0.302), %TLC (r = − 0.183), and percent predicted vital capacity (r = − 0.272) (p r = − 0.215) and %TLC (r = − 0.126) (p r = 0.180) and %FEV1 (r = 0.193) (p Conclusion Larger thoracic Cobb angles, greater apical vertebral rotation angle, or hypokyphosis were significantly associated with greater pulmonary impairments in patients with AIS, although the evidence was limited. From a clinical perspective, the results highlight the importance of minimizing the three-dimensional spinal deformity in preserving lung function in these patients. More research is warranted to confirm these results.

Purpose The focus of SPINE20 is to develop evidence-based policy recommendations for the G20 countries to work with governments to reduce the burden of spine disease, and disability. Methods On September 17–18, 2021, SPINE20 held its annual meeting in Rome, Italy. Prior to the meeting, the SPINE20 created six proposed recommendations. These recommendations were uploaded to the SPINE20 website 10 days before the meeting and opened to the public for comments. The recommendations were discussed at the meeting allowing the participants to object and provide comments. Results In total, 27 societies endorsed the following recommendations. SPINE20 calls upon the G20 countries: (1) to expand telehealth for the access to spine care, especially in light of the current situation with COVID-19. (2) To adopt value-based interprofessional spine care as an approach to improve patient outcomes and reduce disability. (3) To facilitate access and invest in the development of a competent rehabilitation workforce to reduce the burden of disability related to spine disorders. (4) To adopt a strategy to promote daily physical activity and exercises among the elderly population to maintain an active and independent life with a healthy spine, particularly after COVID-19 pandemic. (5) To engage in capacity building with emerging countries and underserved communities for the benefit of spine patients. (6) To promote strategies to transfer evidence-based advances into patient benefit through effective implementation processes. Conclusions SPINE20’s initiatives will make governments and decision makers aware of efforts to reduce needless suffering from disabling spine pain through education that can be instituted across the globe.

The development of high-quality research is desired in all healthcare fields. Experimental and nonexperimental designs are used to investigate the effect or association of an intervention and clinical or surrogate outcome. The aims of these methods are to improve knowledge and to develop new strategies to manage a disease or condition. Randomized clinical trials are considered one of the standard methods to test the efficacy of a new drug or intervention; however, they are costly, have reduced generalizability, and cannot be feasible in all scenarios. Well-designed observational studies can provide valuable information regarding exposure factor and the event under investigation. In physical and rehabilitation medicine, where complex procedures and multiple risk factors can be involved in the same disease, the use of observational study must be planned in detail and a priori to avoid overestimations. In this article, we will give an overview of the methods used for observational design studies in physical and rehabilitation medicine using clinical examples to illustrate each method. We will describe when it is appropriate and how to use the observational studies in different scenarios explaining how to deal with potential bias and confounders using the adequate design and statistical plan for the situation.

Purpose Treatment selection for idiopathic scoliosis is informed by the risk of curve progression. Previous models predicting curve progression lacked validation, did not include the full growth/severity spectrum or included treated patients. The objective was to develop and validate models to predict future curve angles using clinical data collected only at, or both at and prior to, an initial specialist consultation in idiopathic scoliosis. Methods This is an analysis of 2317 patients with idiopathic scoliosis between 6 and 25 years old. Patients were previously untreated and provided at least one prior radiograph prospectively collected at first consult. Radiographs were re-measured blinded to the predicted outcome: the maximum Cobb angle on the last radiograph while untreated. Linear mixed-effect models were used to examine the effect of data from the first available visit (age, sex, maximum Cobb angle, Risser, and curve type) and from other visits while untreated (maximum Cobb angle) and time (from the first available radiograph to prediction) on the Cobb angle outcome. Interactions of the first available angle with time, of time with sex, and time with Risser were also tested. Results We included 2317 patients (83% of females) with 3255 prior X-rays where 71% had 1, 21.1% had 2, and 7.5% had 3 or more. Mean age was 13.9 ± 2.2yrs and 81% had AIS. Curve types were: 50% double, 26% lumbar/thoracolumbar-lumbar, 16% thoracic, and 8% other. Cobb angle at the first available X-ray was 20 ± 10° (0–80) vs 29 ± 13° (6–122) at the outcome visit separated by 28 ± 22mths. In the model using data at and prior to the specialist consult, larger values of the following variables predicted larger future curves: first available Cobb angle, Cobb angle on other previous X-ray, and time (with Time2 and Time3) to the target prediction. Larger values on the following variables predicted a smaller future Cobb angle: Risser and age at the first available X-ray, time*Risser and time*female sex interactions. Cross-validation found a median error of 4.5o with 84% predicted within 10°. Similarly, the model using only data from the first specialist consult had a median error of 5.5o with 80% of cases within 10° and included: maximum Cobb angle at first specialist consult, Time, Time2, age, curve type, and both interactions. Conclusions The models can help clinicians predict how much curves would progress without treatment at future timepoints of their choice using simple variables. Predictions can inform treatment prescription or show families why no treatment is recommended. The nonlinear effects of time account for the rapid increase in curve angle at the beginning of growth and the slowed progression after maturity. These validated models predicted future Cobb angle with good accuracy in untreated idiopathic scoliosis over the full growth spectrum.

Adult scoliosis is sometimes associated with back pain and severe curves can progress over time. Despite scoliosis has been estimated to affect up to 68% of the population over 60, there is scant literature about conservative treatment for adult scoliosis. Recently, we tested a new brace designed to alleviate pain for adult patients with chronic pain secondary to scoliosis. The study aims to test the efficacy of a prefabricated brace in reducing pain in adult scoliosis patients.Twenty adults (age 67.8 ± 10.5, curve 61.9 ± 12.6° Cobb) with chronic low back pain (cLBP) secondary to Idiopathic Scoliosis (IS) were included. Patients were evaluated at baseline immediately before starting with the brace and after 6 months. Outcome measures were GRS, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Roland Morris Questionnaire (RM), COMI. The paired t test, ANOVA and Wilcoxon tests were used for statistical analysis RESULTS: At six months, worst pain, leg pain and back pain were significantly improved: from 7.15 to 5.60, from 5.65 to 4.35 and from 6.55 to 5.25 (p 0.05). Sixty-five percent of patients achieved the minimal clinically important difference of 2 points for worst pain and leg pain, 55% for back pain. RM and COMI improved (p 0.05), no differences for ODI.The prefabricated brace showed a significant improvement at 6 months of worst, leg and back pain in most patients in a group of adult women with IS and cLBP. The quality of life didn't change in a clinically significant way even if the patients reported satisfaction with the treatment. Trial registration number and date of registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02643290, December 31, 2015.

Objective To investigate the feasibility and acceptability of telemedicine as a substitute of outpatient services in emergency situations like by the sudden surge of the COVID-19 pandemic in Italy. Design Observational cohort study with historical control. Setting Tertiary referral outpatient Institute. Participants Consecutive services provided to patients with spinal disorders. Interventions Telemedicine services included teleconsultations and telephysiotherapy. They lasted as long as usual interventions. They were delivered using free teleconference Apps, caregivers were actively involved, interviews and counselling were performed as usual. Teleconsultations included standard, but adapted measurements and evaluations in video and from photos/videos sent in advance according to specific tutorials. During telephysiotherapy, new sets of exercises were defined and recorded as usual. Main Outcome Measure(s) We compared the number of services provided in three phases, among them and with corresponding periods in 2018 and 2019: during CONTROL (30 working days) and COVID surge (13 days) only usual consultations/physiotherapy were provided, while during TELEMED (15 days) only teleconsultations/telephysiotherapy. If a reliable medical decision was not possible during teleconsultations, usual face-to-face interventions were prescribed. Continuous quality improvement questionnaires were also evaluated. Results During TELEMED, 325 teleconsulations and 882 telephysiotherapy sessions were provided in 15 days. We found a rapid decrease (-39%) of outpatient services from CONTROL to COVID phase (R2=0.85), partially recovered in TELEMED for telephysiotherapy (from -37% to -21%; p, Highlights ● Due to COVID-19 pandemic outpatients care is difficult ● A progressive drop was found in Italy, even before the total lockdown ● The total conversion to telemedicine offered a unique experimental set-up ● We found a partial recover with satisfaction of patients and professionals ● Telemedicine is feasible and acceptable in emergency situation

Účel: Studie prokázaly, že ortéza je účinnou léčbou pacientů s idiopatickou skoliózou. Podle současné klasifikace spadají téměř všechny ortézy do kategorie torakolumbosakrálních ortéz (TLSO). V důsledku toho je zobecnění vědeckých výsledků buď nemožné, nebo zavádějící. Cílem této studie je vytvořit klasifikaci typů ortéz. Metody: Čtyři vědecké společnosti (SOSORT, SRS, ISPO a POSNA) vyzvaly všechny své členy, aby se zúčastnili studie. Šest odborníků 1. úrovně vypracovalo počáteční klasifikace. Na konsenzuálním setkání s dalšími 26 odborníky a představiteli společností umožnila tematická analýza a obecná diskuse definovat klasifikaci (minimálně 80% shoda). Klasifikace byla použita na ortézy publikované v literatuře a oficiálně schválena 4 vědeckými společnostmi a ESPRM. Výsledky: Klasifikace je založena na následujících klasifikačních položkách: anatomie (CTLSO, TLSO, LSO), tuhost (velmi tuhá, tuhá, pružná), primární korekční rovina (frontální, sagitální, transverzální, frontální a sagitální, frontální a transverzální, sagitální a transverzální, třídimenzionální), konstrukce - ventily (jednokotoučové, dvoukotoučové, vícesegmentové), konstrukce - uzávěr (dorzální, laterální, ventrální) a primární působení (ohyb, detorze, prodloužení, pohyb, push-up, tříbodové). Odborníci vypracovali definici pro každou položku a byli schopni klasifikovat 15 publikovaných ortéz do devíti skupin. Závěry: V rámci studie byly vybrány dvě skupiny ortéz, které se zabývají problematikou ortéz: Klasifikace je založena na nejlepších současných odborných znalostech (nejnižší úroveň důkazů). Odborníci uznávají, že se jedná o první vydání a že se bude měnit s budoucími poznatky a výzkumem. Široké uplatnění této klasifikace by mohlo mít význam pro výzkum rovnátek, vzdělávání, klinickou praxi a růst v této oblasti. Purpose: Studies have shown that bracing is an effective treatment for patients with idiopathic scoliosis. According to the current classification, almost all braces fall in the thoracolumbosacral orthosis (TLSO) category. Consequently, the generalization of scientific results is either impossible or misleading. This study aims to produce a classification of the brace types. Methods: Four scientific societies (SOSORT, SRS, ISPO, and POSNA) invited all their members to be part of the study. Six level 1 experts developed the initial classifications. At a consensus meeting with 26 other experts and societies’ officials, thematic analysis and general discussion allowed to define the classification (minimum 80% agreement). The classification was applied to the braces published in the literature and officially approved by the 4 scientific societies and by ESPRM. Results: The classification is based on the following classificatory items: anatomy (CTLSO, TLSO, LSO), rigidity (very rigid, rigid, elastic), primary corrective plane (frontal, sagittal, transverse, frontal & sagittal, frontal & transverse, sagittal & transverse, three-dimensional), construction—valves (monocot, bivalve, multisegmented), construction—closure (dorsal, lateral, ventral), and primary action (bending, detorsion, elongation, movement, push-up, three points). The experts developed a definition for each item and were able to classify the 15 published braces into nine groups. Conclusion: The classification is based on the best current expertise (the lowest level of evidence). Experts recognize that this is the first edition and will change with future understanding and research. The broad application of this classification could have value for brace research, education, clinical practice, and growth in this field.

Purpose In-brace radiograph of adolescents with idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) has been shown to reflect brace efficacy and the possibility of achieving curve correction. Conversely, the first out-of-brace radiograph could demonstrate the patient’s ability to maintain the correction. We aimed to determine which of the two radiographs is the best predictor of the Cobb angle at the end of treatment (final radiograph). Design Retrospective cohort study of a prospective dataset. Methods The population was selected based on the following inclusion criteria: AIS, age 10–18 years; Risser score 0–2; Cobb angle 25–40°; brace treatment; availability of all radiographs. Statistics: Pearson correlations provide a first exploration of data. The univariate and multivariate logistic regression model tested the predictors. Finally ROC curve provided a check of model accuracy. Results A total of 131 patients were included (mean age 13.0 ± 1.3, Cobb angle 33.2 ± 5.5°; 78% females). At the end of treatment, 56% had stabilised, 9% had progressed, and 44% had improved. The difference between the in-brace and final radiographs was 8.0 ± 6.0°, while the difference between the first out-of-brace and final radiographs was 1.8 ± 5.2°. The best predictor of final outcome was the first out-of-brace radiograph (0.80), compared to in-brace (0.68) and baseline (0.59) radiographs. The best cut-offs to predict avoidance of progression were 30% and 10% of the correction rates for the in-brace and first out-of-brace radiographs, respectively. Conclusion The first out-of-brace radiograph predicts end results better than the in-brace radiograph. It offers an excellent clinical reference for clinicians and patients. The first out-of-brace radiograph should be considered an essential element of future predictive models. Level of Evidence 1 Diagnostic: individual cross-sectional studies with consistently applied reference standard and blinding.

Combining evidence-based medicine and shared decision making, current guidelines support an evidence-based personalised approach (EBPA) for idiopathic scoliosis in adolescents (AIS). EBPA is considered important for adolescents’ compliance, which is particularly difficult in AIS. Benchmarking to existing Randomised Controlled Trials (RCTs) as paradigms of single treatments, we aimed to check the effectiveness and burden of care of an EBPA in high-risk AIS. This study’s design features a retrospective observation of a prospective database including 25,361 spinal deformity patients &lt, 18 years of age. Participants consisted of 1938 AIS, 11–45° Cobb, Risser stage 0–2, who were studied until the end of growth. EBPA included therapies classified for burdensomeness according to current guidelines. Using the same inclusion criteria of the RCTs on exercises, plastic, and elastic bracing, out of the 1938 included, we benchmarked 590, 687, and 884 participants, respectively. We checked clinically significant results and burden of care, calculating Relative Risk of success (RR) and Number Needed to Treat (NNT) for efficacy (EA) and intent-to-treat analyses. At the end of growth, 19% of EBPA participants progressed, while 33% improved. EBPA showed 2.0 (1.7–2.5) and 2.9 (1.7–4.9) RR of success versus Weinstein and Coillard’s studies control groups, respectively. Benchmarked to plastic or elastic bracing, EBPA had 1.4 (1.2–1.5) and 1.7 (1.2–2.5) RR of success, respectively. The EBPA treatment burden was greater than RCTs in 48% of patients, and reduced for 24% and 42% versus plastic and elastic bracing, respectively. EBPA showed to be from 40% to 70% more effective than benchmarked individual treatments, with low NNT. The burden of treatment was frequently reduced, but it had to be increased even more frequently.

In conservative early onset scoliosis treatment, interest in bracing is growing because repeated general anaesthesia (required by casting) has been questioned for possible brain damages. We aimed to check the results in the medium term of bracing, comparing idiopathic (IIS) to secondary (SIS) infantile scoliosis.We performed a retrospective study in a consecutive prospective cohort. Inclusion criteria were: discovery of scoliosis and bracing below age 3; exclusion criteria: previous spine surgery, less than three consultations. We considered the following results: full ( 20° Cobb) and partial ( 30°) success; hold-up (progression 5° but curve 29°); partial (progression 5°) and full (fusion) failure; statistics: ANOVA for repeated measures; linear mixed effect model with Cobb angle (dependent), time and diagnosis (independent) variables.We included 34 infants (16 IIS and 18 SIS) of age 1·10 ± 0·10 (years·months), 44 ± 17° curves, 27 ± 10° rib vertebral angle difference, average observation 5·05 ± 3·03 years. We found progressive improvement of IIS and stability of SIS patients. Six IIS (37.5%) and one SIS (6%) reached brace weaning before puberty with 13 ± 5° (improvement 61 ± 15%, p 0.001), after 4·11 ± 3·07 years of treatment. Three patients were fused, one IIS (6%) and two SIS (11%). Two IIS patients also reached end-of-growth with 18° (start 40° at 1·03 years) and 20° (start 32° at 2·12 years), respectively.Bracing shows promising results in the medium term for high-degree IIS, with very few hold-ups (19%) and failures (12%). Conversely, failures prevail for SIS (full 11%), even if the partial failure (39%) is still a time-buying strategy.

Low back pain (LBP) is the most common musculoskeletal condition affecting the quality of life of individuals, especially if persistent. Over the decades, a lot of work has been done in an attempt to reduce the negative impact of back pain, and help patients recover and maintain a better quality of life. New insights are coming from different fields of research, with a lot of work being done in searching for the etiology of LBP, describing the different phenotypes of symptomatic spines, and identifying factors involved in the persistence of the disease. Nevertheless, still a lot remains to be done to fully understand the problem of back pain and its causes. Even today, there appears to be a wide gap between basic science and applied rehabilitation research on LBP. The first is still searching in many different ways for the "holy grail" of the pain generator and providing very interesting results with particular relevance to surgical, drug-related and other biological approaches, while the second is pragmatically focusing on modifiable factors that may influence back pain outcomes. Yet, personalized, effective spine care has not been fully realized. While we recognize the potential of basic science advances, there is an immediate need for more translational rehabilitation research, as well as studies focused on the effectiveness of rehabilitation approaches.

The effectiveness of operative compared with nonoperative treatment at initial presentation (no prior fusion) for adult lumbar scoliosis has not, to our knowledge, been evaluated in controlled trials. The goals of this study were to evaluate the effects of operative and nonoperative treatment and to assess the benefits of these treatments to help treating physicians determine whether patients are better managed operatively or nonoperatively.Patients with adult symptomatic lumbar scoliosis (aged 40 to 80 years, with a coronal Cobb angle measurement of ≥30° and an Oswestry Disability Index [ODI] score of ≥20 or Scoliosis Research Society [SRS]-22 score of ≤4.0) from 9 North American centers were enrolled in concurrent randomized or observational cohorts to evaluate operative versus nonoperative treatment. The primary outcomes were differences in the mean change from baseline in the SRS-22 subscore and ODI at 2-year follow-up. For the randomized cohort, the initial sample-size calculation estimated that 41 patients per group (82 total) would provide 80% power with alpha equal to 0.05, anticipating 10% loss to follow-up and 20% nonadherence in the nonoperative arm. However, an interim sample-size calculation estimated that 18 patients per group would be sufficient.Sixty-three patients were enrolled in the randomized cohort: 30 in the operative group and 33 in the nonoperative group. Two hundred and twenty-three patients were enrolled in the observational cohort: 112 in the operative group and 111 in the nonoperative group. The intention-to-treat analysis of the randomized cohort found that, at 2 years of follow-up, outcomes did not differ between the groups. Nonadherence was high in the randomized cohort (64% nonoperative-to-operative crossover). In the as-treated analysis of the randomized cohort, operative treatment was associated with greater improvement at the 2-year follow-up in the SRS-22 subscore (adjusted mean difference, 0.7 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.5 to 1.0]) and in the ODI (adjusted mean difference, -16 [95% CI, -22 to -10]) (p0.001 for both). Surgery was also superior to nonoperative care in the observational cohort at 2 years after treatment on the basis of SRS-22 subscore and ODI outcomes (p0.001). In an overall responder analysis, more operative patients achieved improvement meeting or exceeding the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) in the SRS-22 subscore (85.7% versus 38.7%; p0.001) and the ODI (77.4% versus 38.3%; p0.001). Thirty-four revision surgeries were performed in 24 (14%) of the operative patients.On the basis of as-treated and MCID analyses, if a patient with adult symptomatic lumbar scoliosis is satisfied with current spine-related health, nonoperative treatment is advised, with the understanding that improvement is unlikely. If a patient is not satisfied with current spine health and expects improvement, surgery is preferred.Therapeutic Level II. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

STUDY DESIGN Comparative effectiveness study OBJECTIVE.: To evaluate factors leading to higher percentage of brace failures in a cohort of North American patients with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis relative to their peers in Italy. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA Studies of bracing in United States have shown worse outcomes than studies from European centers, possibly due to sample characteristics or treatment approaches. METHODS Sample: Braced patients, aged 10 to 15, Risser

This study aims to propose and validate a new unified “Risser+” grade that combines the North American (NA) and European (EU) variants of the classic Risser score. The “Risser+ ” grade can effectively combine the North American and European Risser Classifications for skeletal maturity with adequate intra-rater/inter-rater reliability and agreement. Agreement and reliability were evaluated for 6 raters (3-NA, 3-EU) who assessed 120 pelvic radiographs from the BrAIST trial, all female, average age 13.4 (range 10.1–16.5 years). Blinded raters reviewed x-rays at two time-points. Intra- and inter-rater agreement (RA) were established with Krippendorff’s alpha (k-alpha), while intra- and inter-rater reliability (RR) were established with intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC). Acceptable agreement and reliability were set a priori at 0.80. Inter-RA for the second reading met study requirements (k-alpha = 0.86 [0.81–0.90]) compared to the first reading (0.72 [0.63–0.79]) while combined readings was close to target agreement (0.79 [0.74–0.84]). Removal of 20 readings demonstrating outlier tendencies increased agreement for the first, second, and combined reads (k-alpha = 0.85, 0.89, 0.87, respectively). Intra-RA was sufficient for 4 out of 6 raters (k-alpha > 0.80) and one rater from EU and NA presented subpar intra-RA (k-alpha = 0.64 and 0.74, respectively). Inter-RR met study requirements overall reads (ICC = 0.96 [0.95–0.97]) including the first (0.94 [0.92–0.95]) and second (0.97 [0.97–0.98]) reads, independently. The Risser+ system showed excellent reliability across multiple reads and raters and demonstrated 79% agreement overall reads and ratings. Agreement increased to over 85% when raters could distinguish Risser 0 + from Risser 5. These slides can be retrieved from electronic supplementary material.

The aim of the study was to provide a meta-analysis of current literature concerning the natural history of idiopathic scoliosis during growth.A comprehensive search of Medline, Embase, And Scopus databases was conducted up to November 2016. Eligible works were prospective or retrospective studies that enrolled patients with infantile idiopathic scoliosis, juvenile idiopathic scoliosis, or adolescent idiopathic scoliosis, followed up without any treatment from the time of detection. A meta-analysis for proportion was performed. The following studies were grouped per diagnosis: infantile idiopathic scoliosis, juvenile idiopathic scoliosis, and adolescent idiopathic scoliosis.Of the 1797 citations screened, we assessed 61 full-text articles and included 13 of these (2301 participants). Three studies included infantile idiopathic scoliosis patients (347 participants), five studies included a mixed population of juvenile idiopathic scoliosis and adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (1330 participants), and five studies included adolescent idiopathic scoliosis patients only (624 participants). The random pooled estimated progression rate was 49% (95% confidence interval = 1%-97%) for infantile idiopathic scoliosis, 49% in a mixed group of patients affected by juvenile idiopathic scoliosis or adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (95% confidence interval = 19%-79%), and 42% in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (95% confidence interval = 11%-73%).During growth, idiopathic scoliosis tends to progress in a high percentage of cases. The progression rate varies according to the age at diagnosis, with infantile scoliosis being the most unpredictable. There are many confounders, such as age, Risser sign and baseline Cobb angles that were not consistent among studies, making the data very heterogeneous.

Background Context Spinal deformities are commonly associated with poor health-related quality of life (HRQOL). Several questionnaires (eg, Scoliosis Research Society-24 [SRS-24] and Scoliosis Research Society-22 [SRS-22]) have been developed to evaluate HRQOL in these conditions. In adults as well as during growth, the HRQOL is considered one of the most relevant outcomes of both conservative and surgical treatments. Rasch analysis is a powerful statistical technique for developing high-quality and valid questionnaires. The SRS-24 and SRS-22 have been evaluated using the Rasch analysis but showed poor measurement properties. Thus, a proper measure of HRQOL in people with a spine condition is still missing. Purpose This study aimed to develop a new questionnaire that is totally Rasch consistent for measuring the HRQOL in young people with a spine condition. Study Design This is a cross-sectional study for developing a new HRQOL measure. Patient Sample A total of 402 participants with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis or Scheuermann juvenile kyphosis were included in the study. Outcome Measure The outcome measure used was the Italian Spine Youth Quality of Life (ISYQOL) questionnaire. Materials and Methods The study consisted of different stages: a conventional approach content analysis, an opinion poll among clinicians trained in spine deformities, and the Rasch analysis (partial credit model). Results The Rasch analysis showed that all items of the ISYQOL questionnaire had ordered thresholds and a good fit to the model. Differential item functioning was present for Item 1, with bracing only, and was solved with a conventional items splitting procedure. The ISYQOL item map spans an adequate range of HRQOL. The principal component analysis for Rasch residuals showed, in practical terms, the ISYQOL unidimensionality. The reliability of ISYQOL was high enough so that approximately three significantly different levels of HRQOL could be discerned. Two questionnaire versions were provided for patients with and without the brace, respectively. Conclusions ISYQOL is the first HRQOL questionnaire developed according to the Rasch analysis. It was developed in a conservative treatment setting for all types of spinal deformities, including also patients with surgical curves. Validation in many languages is already under way.

ispartof: ECLINICALMEDICINE vol:18 ispartof: location:England status: published

Background Aesthetics is recognized as a main outcome in idiopathic scoliosis (IS) treatment, but to date, there is no criterion standard for physicians’ evaluation. Trunk Aesthetic Clinical Evaluation (TRACE) is a simple 12-point ordinal scale to quantify symmetry as a proxy of aesthetics. TRACE is already diffused worldwide and has been used in clinical research. Objective We aimed to validate TRACE and improve it with Rasch analysis. Material and methods This study involved an observational Rasch analysis validation of an evaluation tool in outpatient rehabilitation centres. From a clinical database, we randomly selected patients who had IS, were age 10 to 18, had brace prescription at first evaluation, and had at least 2 consultations. Rasch analysis (partial credit model) was used. Differential item functioning (DIF) was assessed for age, sex, disease severity, bracing and treatment. The median was chosen to dichotomize disease severity and bracing. We removed 64 outlier participants (4%). Results We included 1553 participants (1334 females; mean [SD] age 13 [1.7] years old). TRACE items showed ordered thresholds and proper fit to the Rasch model. The score-to-measure conversion table showed proper length (range −4.55 to 4.79 logit) with a mean (SE) measure of −0.52 (0.04) logit. The principal component analysis supported the TRACE unidimensionality. The TRACE was free from DIF for age, sex and bracing. Conclusions The TRACE ordinal scale has been converted into a Rasch-consistent, interval-level measure of trunk aesthetics in IS patients and can be used to compare different populations. Its main flaw is low reliability, likely because of the small number of items. TRACE can be used as an outcome measure and in everyday clinical evaluation of IS, even if new developments of the scale are advised.

Background Plumb line distances (PDs) are widely used in conservative clinical practice to evaluate the sagittal shape of the spine. Objective The objective was to assess the normative values of PDs in a large, healthy population in an age range representative of the adolescent population with spinal deformities, and to correlate it with x-ray measurements. Design This was a cross-sectional study. Methods Participants were 584 healthy individuals (341 females) with x-rays showing no spine deformities. The whole sample (OVERALL) was divided into 5 groups: 6 to 9 years old (n = 106); >10 years, Risser 0 with triradiate cartilage open (n = 129) or closed (n = 104); Risser 1 to 2 (n = 126); and Risser 3 to 5 (n = 119). PDs were taken by maintaining a tangent to the thoracic kyphosis apex at C7, T12, L3, and S2. Sagittal index (C7 + L3), and sagittal and coronal balances (C7 related to S2) were calculated. Results In OVERALL, PDs at C7, T12, L3, and S2 were 39.9 ± 16.7, 21.4 ± 15.3, 39.9 ± 15, 20.6 ± 17.0 mm, respectively. Sagittal index was 79.8 ± 26.8, sagittal balance was 19.3 ± 17 mm anterior to S2 plumb line; 13.5% had a coronal imbalance of 11.4 ± 5.4 mm to the right and 24.7% of 13.2 ± 6.0 mm to the left. C7 and L3 PDs, sagittal index, and sagittal balance were significantly lower in ages 6 to 9 compared to older patients in Risser 1 to 2 group. C7 and S2 PDs and sagittal index were significantly larger in males. Sagittal index correlated with thoracic kyphosis Cobb degrees (r = 0.47). Limitations The participants were not randomly chosen from the general population; and they had an x-ray because of spine pathology suspicion. Conclusions This study shows normative data to be used in clinical practice. Sagittal spinopelvic alignment has gained more and more importance in the last decades because of its high correlation to Health-Related Quality of Life scores in adults. 1

BACKGROUND: Many people with low back pain (LBP) become frequent users of healthcare services in their attempt to find treatments that minimise the severity of their symptoms. Back School consists of a therapeutic programme given to groups of people that includes both education and exercise. However, the content of Back School has changed over time and appears to vary widely today. This review is an update of a Cochrane review of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the effectiveness of Back School. We split the Cochrane review into two reviews, one focusing on acute and subacute LBP, and one on chronic LBP. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this systematic review was to determine the effect of Back School on pain and disability for adults with chronic non‐specific LBP; we included adverse events as a secondary outcome. In trials that solely recruited workers, we also examined the effect on work status. SEARCH METHODS: We searched for trials in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, two other databases and two trials registers to 15 November 2016. We also searched the reference lists of eligible papers and consulted experts in the field of LBP management to identify any potentially relevant studies we may have missed. We placed no limitations on language or date of publication. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included only RCTs and quasi‐RCTs evaluating pain, disability, and/or work status as outcomes. The primary outcomes for this update were pain and disability, and the secondary outcomes were work status and adverse events. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently performed the 'Risk of bias' assessment of the included studies using the 'Risk of bias' assessment tool recommended by The Cochrane Collaboration. We summarised the results for the short‐, intermediate‐, and long‐term follow‐ups. We evaluated the overall quality of evidence using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: For the outcome pain, at short‐term follow‐up, we found very low‐quality evidence that Back School is more effective than no treatment (mean difference (MD) ‐6.10, 95% confidence interval (CI) ‐10.18 to ‐2.01). However, we found very low‐quality evidence that there is no significant difference between Back School and no treatment at intermediate‐term (MD ‐4.34, 95% CI –14.37 to 5.68) or long‐term follow‐up (MD ‐12.16, 95% CI ‐29.14 to 4.83). There was very low‐quality evidence that Back School reduces pain at short‐term follow‐up compared to medical care (MD ‐10.16, 95% CI –19.11 to ‐1.22). Very low‐quality evidence showed there to be no significant difference between Back School and medical care at intermediate‐term (MD ‐9.65, 95% CI ‐22.46 to 3.15) or long‐term follow‐up (MD ‐5.71, 95% CI –20.27 to 8.84). We found very low‐quality evidence that Back School is no more effective than passive physiotherapy at short‐term (MD 1.96, 95% CI –9.51 to 13.43), intermediate‐term (MD ‐16.89, 95% CI ‐66.56 to 32.79), or long‐term follow‐up (MD ‐12.86, 95% CI –61.22 to 35.50). There was very low‐quality evidence that Back School is no better than exercise at short‐ term follow‐up (MD ‐2.06, 95% CI –14.58 to 10.45). There was low‐quality evidence that Back School is no better than exercise at intermediate‐term (MD ‐4.46, 95% CI –19.44 to 10.52) and long‐term follow‐up (MD 4.58, 95% CI –0.20 to 9.36). For the outcome disability, we found very low‐quality evidence that Back School is no more effective than no treatment at intermediate‐term (MD –5.92, 95% CI –12.08 to 0.23) and long‐term follow‐up (MD ‐7.36, 95% CI ‐22.05 to 7.34); medical care at short‐term (MD –1.19, 95% CI –7.02 to 4.64) and long‐term follow‐up (MD –0.40, 95% CI –7.33 to 6.53); passive physiotherapy at short‐term (MD 2.57, 95% CI –15.88 to 21.01) and intermediate‐term follow‐up (MD 6.88, 95% CI ‐4.86 to 18.63); and exercise at short‐term (MD ‐1.65, 95% CI –8.66 to 5.37), intermediate‐term (MD 1.57, 95% CI –3.86 to 7.00), and long‐term follow‐up (MD 4.54, 95% CI ‐4.44 to 13.52). We found very low‐quality evidence of a small difference between Back School and no treatment at short‐term follow‐up (MD –3.38, 95% CI –6.70 to –0.05) and medical care at intermediate‐term follow‐up (MD –6.34, 95% CI –10.89 to –1.79). Still, at long‐term follow‐up there was very low‐quality evidence that passive physiotherapy is better than Back School (MD 9.60, 95% CI 3.65 to 15.54). Few studies measured adverse effects. The results were reported as means without standard deviations or group size was not reported. Due to this lack of information, we were unable to statistically pool the adverse events data. Work status was not reported. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Due to the low‐ to very low‐quality of the evidence for all treatment comparisons, outcomes, and follow‐up periods investigated, it is uncertain if Back School is effective for chronic low back pain. Although the quality of the evidence was mostly very low, the results showed no difference or a trivial effect in favour of Back School. There are myriad potential variants on the Back School approach regarding the employment of different exercises and educational methods. While current evidence does not warrant their use, future variants on Back School may have different effects and will need to be studied in future RCTs and reviews.

BACKGROUND: In respect to the prescribed regimen and the regular daily pattern, investigate how short-term results are affected by wear time adherence in terms of hours per day. METHODS: This is a case-control study. The setting is outpatient clinic. There were 168 subjects, all of whom met the inclusion criteria: adolescent idiopathic scoliosis and Sforzesco brace prescription of 18 to 23 h/day. The minimum period of follow-up was 4 months, and the maximum was 6 months, which is the average time passing between the Thermobrace (TB) adoption and out-of-brace X-ray before treatment. The brace wear adherence rate, calculated from the ratio of brace wear time with the prescription, was considered in combination with the daily pattern compliance, classified as consistent (104 patients) or inconsistent according to the abnormal distribution of Thermobrace data. The short-term results were finally explored. RESULTS: Consistent brace wear is associated with a higher probability of improvement in curve magnitude (OR 1.96 CI 95% 1.22-3.14 chi-square 7.78 p = 0.0053). Inconsistent brace wear is more likely to progress (OR 0.14 CI 95% 0.30-0.75 chi-square 10.13 p = 0.0015). Results from the logistic regression show that the most influencing factor for improvement is Cobb degrees at the start. CONCLUSIONS: In clinical everyday activity, patients must be encouraged to consistently follow their brace wear prescription, because this attitude is clearly associated with a higher probability of improvement. ispartof: SCOLIOSIS AND SPINAL DISORDERS vol:13 ispartof: location:England status: published

The aim of this study was to describe the association between scoliosis and sagittal balance parameters in Parkinson disease patients.This is a cross-sectional study.Fifty percent of the cohort presented a scoliosis larger than 11 degrees; 84% of the patients with scoliosis presented a thoracolumbar curve, 10% presented a thoracic one, and 6% presented a lumbar one. The group with scoliosis curves presented a lower spinosacral angle (111.6 [21.9] degrees vs. 121.7 [9.8] degrees, P0.05), whereas thoracic kyphosis, lumbar lordosis, and spinopelvic angle were similar. Pelvic incidence, pelvic tilt, and sacral slope were not statistically different. In the scoliosis group, the authors found negative correlations for lumbar lordosis/spinopelvic angle, sacral slope/spinosacral angle, and lumbar lordosis/pelvic tilt. Moreover, the sacral slope/pelvic tilt correlation was positive in patients without scoliosis and negative in others. The two groups did not present differences regarding age, years of disease, Hoehn-Yahr score, and Unified Parkinson Disease Rating Scale-motor section.Pelvic parameters were similar in the two groups, whereas spinosacral angle was lower in patients with scoliosis. The prevalence of scoliosis in Parkinson disease was higher than what was previously described and the thoracolumbar spine was the mostly affected.

Background In some studies, an association has been reported between laterality of the curve in scoliotic adolescents and hand dominance; however, additional studies have to be performed to confirm these findings. Objective The objective of this study is to evaluate the prevalence between trunk asymmetry and side dominance in hand, foot and visual laterality in adolescents. Methods This was a cross-sectional study secondary analysis. In total, 1029 children (491 females) were enrolled from the Secondary School of Brescia, Italy, with a mean age of 12 (SD = 0.9 years). All subjects underwent a screening program divided into three phases: Phase 1, collection of demographic and clinical characteristics; Phase 2, spine evaluation with a plumb line and Bunnell Scoliometer; and Phase 3, evaluation of side dominance of the eye, hand and foot with a 4-item survey. Results Our data showed a prevalence of 0.43%, 1.01% and 0.87% for thoracic, thoracolumbar and lumbar curves, respectively, with a right-side dominance and a prevalence of 2.72%, 2.54% and 0.65% for thoracic, thoracolumbar and lumbar curves, respectively, with a left-side dominance. Conclusion The left-side dominance could have a prevalence on trunk asymmetry in thoracic and thoraco-lumbar curves. Our study suggests that the clinical evaluation of trunk asymmetry should be associated with the evaluation of laterality.

Objective The aim of this study was to examine the association between trunk sagittal posture and nonspecific chronic low back pain (CLBP) by evaluating plumb-line distances in subjects recruited in an everyday clinical setting. Methods Of the 1364 subjects recruited, 63.1% were female (mean age ± SD: 56.2 ± 16.8 years). Subjects were categorized into CLBP and control groups and were prospectively assessed over a 3-month period. They provided information about their daily activities and their history of CLBP. Prognostic factors were analysed using univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses. A physical examination was performed to record demographic (i.e. age, height and weight) and pain characteristics, and the intensity of pain was assessed using a numerical visual analogue scale. Disability was assessed using the Roland–Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ). A simple measure generally used for sagittal plane screening purposes during growth was also utilized. Results Multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed that gender (OR = 1.70), RMDQ score (OR = 0.51) and thoracic hyperkyphosis (C7 + L3 at the plumb-line distance) (OR = 1.57) were associated with CLBP. The final regression model explained 85.6% (R 2 = 0.56; P Conclusions General practitioners can clinically and easily assess trunk posture in subjects with low back pain to identify subjects at higher risk of CLBP.

A long debate exists about the connection between anorexia nervosa (AN) and scoliosis due to conflicting evidence. No study so far has evaluated the prevalence of scoliosis in patients with AN. The aim of the study is to evaluate the prevalence of idiopathic scoliosis in patients with AN. Design: cross-sectional study. Study group: convenience sample of all patients matching the inclusion criteria. Control group: female participants coming from an epidemiological screening for scoliosis. Inclusion criteria: patients had a diagnosis of AN during adolescence according to the DSM-IV-TR criteria. We applied a two-level screening using a Bunnell scoliometer and a radiograph. We calculated the odds ratio compared with participants coming from a school screening. Seventy-seven females with AN were compared to 816 females screened for scoliosis. The prevalence of scoliosis in the AN group was 16.9% (OR 5.77, 95% CI 3.12–10.67) with respect to the control group. If we consider as positive only those who received a scoliosis diagnosis during adolescence, the OR would be 3.15 (95% CI 1.55–6.42). This is the first study performed on patients with AN showing a sixfold greater odds of presenting with scoliosis. A cause–effect relationship cannot be determined due to the design.

Background The International Scientific Society on Scoliosis Orthopaedic and Rehabilitation Treatment (SOSORT) produced its first guidelines in 2005 and renewed them in 2011. Recently published high-quality clinical trials on the effect of conservative treatment approaches (braces and exercises) for idiopathic scoliosis prompted us to update the last guidelines’ version. The objective was to align the guidelines with the new scientific evidence to assure faster knowledge transfer into clinical practice of conservative treatment for idiopathic scoliosis (CTIS). Methods Physicians, researchers and allied health practitioners working in the area of CTIS were involved in the development of the 2016 guidelines. Multiple literature reviews reviewing the evidence on CTIS (assessment, bracing, physiotherapy, physiotherapeutic scoliosis-specific exercises (PSSE) and other CTIS) were conducted. Documents, recommendations and practical approach flow charts were developed using a Delphi procedure. The process was completed with the Consensus Session held during the first combined SOSORT/IRSSD Meeting held in Banff, Canada, in May 2016. Results The contents of the new 2016 guidelines include the following: background on idiopathic scoliosis, description of CTIS approaches for various populations with flow-charts for clinical practice, as well as literature reviews and recommendations on assessment, bracing, PSSE and other CTIS. The present guidelines include a total of 68 recommendations divided into following topics: bracing (n = 25), PSSE to prevent scoliosis progression during growth (n = 12), PSSE during brace treatment and surgical therapy (n = 6), other conservative treatments (n = 2), respiratory function and exercises (n = 3), general sport activities (n = 6); and assessment (n = 14). According to the agreed strength and level of evidence rating scale, there were 2 recommendations on bracing and 1 recommendation on PSSE that reached level of recommendation “I” and level of evidence “II”. Three recommendations reached strength of recommendation A based on the level of evidence I (2 for bracing and one for assessment); 39 recommendations reached strength of recommendation B (20 for bracing, 13 for PSSE, and 6 for assessment).The number of paper for each level of evidence for each treatment is shown in Table 8. Conclusion The 2016 SOSORT guidelines were developed based on the current evidence on CTIS. Over the last 5 years, high-quality evidence has started to emerge, particularly in the areas of efficacy of bracing (one large multicentre trial) and PSSE (three single-centre randomized controlled trials). Several grade A recommendations were presented. Despite the growing high-quality evidence, the heterogeneity of the study protocols limits generalizability of the recommendations. There is a need for standardization of research methods of conservative treatment effectiveness, as recognized by SOSORT and the Scoliosis Research Society (SRS) non-operative management Committee. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s13013-017-0145-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Adult scoliosis is sometimes associated with back pain. Recently, the PeakTo test the efficacy of the Peak Scoliosis Brace in reducing pain in adult scoliosis patients.Prospective experimental cohort study.A total of 20 adult females with back pain secondary to idiopathic scoliosis were included. Patients were evaluated at baseline immediately before starting bracing and after 1 month. The brace had to be worn for at least 2 h per day. The outcome measures used were Graphical Rating Scale, Roland-Morris Questionnaire, Core Outcome Measurement Index, and Oswestry Disability Index.Worst pain, back pain, and leg pain significantly improved from 7.15 to 5.85, from 6.55 to 5.25, and from 5.65 to 3.55, respectively ( p 0.05). A total of 75% of patients reported improved worst and leg pain, 65% improved back pain, 30% of patients achieved the minimal clinically significant difference of 2 points for worst pain, 60% for leg pain, and 25% for back pain. Roland-Morris Questionnaire and Core Outcome Measurement Index improved ( p 0.05) and no differences were observed for Oswestry Disability Index.The Peak Scoliosis Brace led to some improvement of pain at 1 month in a group of adult women with scoliosis and chronic low back pain. The quality of life did not change significantly. Clinical relevance According to our data, the Peak Brace is helpful to quickly improve pain in patients with chronic low back pain secondary to scoliosis. To achieve this goal, it should be applied for at least 2 h per day.