63
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Brace technology thematic series: the dynamic derotation brace

      research-article
      1 , , 2 , 1 , 3
      Scoliosis
      BioMed Central

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          The dynamic derotation brace (DDB) was designed in Greece in 1982, as a modification of the Boston brace. It is a custom-made, underarm spinal orthosis featuring aluminium blades set to produce derotating and anti-rotating effects on the thorax and trunk of patients with scoliosis. It is indicated for the non-operative correction of most curves, barring the very high thoracic ones, (when the apex vertebra is T5 or above). The purpose of this article is to familiarize physicians with the DDB, analyze the rationale behind its design, and present the published results of its application.

          Description & Principles

          The key feature of the DDB is the addition of the aluminium-made derotating blades posteriorly. These function as a force couple, which is added to the side forces exerted by the brace itself. Corrective forces are also directed through pads. One or more of previously proposed pathomechanical models of scoliosis may underline the corrective function of the DDB: it may act directly on the apical intervertebral disc, effecting correction through the Heuter-Volkman principle; the blades may produce an anti-rotatory element against the deforming "spiral composite muscle trunk rotator"; or it may alter the neuro-motor response by constantly providing new somatosensory input to the patient.

          Results

          Based on measurements of the Cobb and Perdriolle angles, up to 82% of patients remained stable or improved with the use of the DDB. Results have varied, though, depending on the type/location of the deformity. The overall results showed that 35% of the curves improved, 46% remained stable and 18% became worse, as assessed by measuring the Cobb angle. The DDB has also been shown to improve cosmesis (except for right thoracic curves) and leave several aspects of patient quality of life unaffected during use.

          Conclusion

          Conservative treatment of idiopathic scoliosis using the DDB has shown favorable results. Thoracic curves appear more resistant to both angular and rotatory correction. The published outcome data on the DDB support our belief that the incorporation of aluminium blades to other orthoses would likely improve their efficacy.

          Related collections

          Most cited references27

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Standardization of criteria for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis brace studies: SRS Committee on Bracing and Nonoperative Management.

          Literature review. To establish consistent parameters for future adolescent idiopathic scoliosis bracing studies so that valid and reliable comparisons can be made. Current bracing literature lacks consistency for both inclusion criteria and the definitions of brace effectiveness. A total of 32 brace treatment studies and the current bracing in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis proposal were analyzed to: (1) determine inclusion criteria that will best identify those patients most at risk for progression, (2) determine the most appropriate definitions for bracing effectiveness, and (3) identify additional variables that would provide valuable information. Early brace studies lacked clarity in their inclusion criteria. In more recent studies, inclusion criteria have narrowed considerably to include primarily those patients most at risk for curve progression who may benefit from the use of a brace. Brace effectiveness was usually defined by various degrees of curve progression at maturity. Less frequently, it was defined by the resultant curve magnitude at maturity, whether or not surgical intervention was needed, or if there was change to another brace. Optimal inclusion criteria for future adolescent idiopathic scoliosis brace studies consist of: age is 10 years or older when brace is prescribed, Risser 0-2, primary curve angles 25 degrees -40 degrees , no prior treatment, and, if female, either premenarchal or less than 1 year postmenarchal. Assessment of brace effectiveness should include: (1) the percentage of patients who have or =6 degrees progression at maturity, (2) the percentage of patients with curves exceeding 45 degrees at maturity and the percentage who have had surgery recommended/undertaken, and (3) 2-year follow-up beyond maturity to determine the percentage of patients who subsequently undergo surgery. All patients, regardless of subjective reports on compliance, should be included in the results (intent to treat). Every study should provide results stratified by curve type and size grouping.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Indications for conservative management of scoliosis (guidelines)

            This guideline has been discussed by the SOSORT guideline committee prior to the SOSORT consensus meeting in Milan, January 2005 and published in its first version on the SOSORT homepage: . After the meeting it again has been discussed by the members of the SOSORT guideline committee to establish the final 2005 version submitted to Scoliosis, the official Journal of the society, in December 2005.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Guidelines on "Standards of management of idiopathic scoliosis with corrective braces in everyday clinics and in clinical research": SOSORT Consensus 2008

              Background Reported failure rates,(defined based on percentage of cases progressing to surgery) of corrective bracing for idiopathic scoliosis are highly variable. This may be due to the quality of the brace itself, but also of the patient care during treatment. The latter is sometimes neglected, even though it is considered a main determinant of good results among conservative experts of SOSORT. The aim of this paper was to develop and verify the Consensus on management of scoliosis patients treated with braces Methods We followed a Delphi process in four steps, distributing and gradually changing according to the results a set of recommendations: we involved the SOSORT Board twice, then all SOSORT members twice, with a Pre-Meeting Questionnaire (PMQ), and during a Consensus Session at the SOSORT Athens Meeting with a Meeting Questionnaire (MQ). We set a 90% agreement as the minimum to be reached. Results We had a 71% response rate to PMQ, and 66.7% to MQ. Since the PMQ we had a good agreement (no answers below 72% – 70.2% over 90%). With the MQ the agreement consistently increased for all the answers previously below 90% (no answers below 83%, 75% over 90%). With increasing experience in bracing all numerical criteria tended to become more strict. We finally produced a set of 14 recommendations, grouped in 6 Domains (Experience/competence, Behaviours, Prescription, Construction, Brace Check, Follow-up). Conclusion The Consensus permits establishment of recommendations concerning the standards of management of idiopathic scoliosis with bracing, with the aim to increase efficacy and compliance to treatment. The SOSORT recommends to professionals engaged in patient care to follow the guidelines of this Consensus in their clinical practice. The SOSORT criteria should also be followed in clinical research studies to achieve a minimum quality of care. If the aim is to verify the efficacy of bracing these criteria should be companions of the methodological research criteria for bracing proposed by other societies.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Scoliosis
                Scoliosis
                BioMed Central
                1748-7161
                2010
                21 September 2010
                : 5
                : 20
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Trauma and Orthopaedics, "Tzanio" General Hospital - NHS, Tzani & Afendouli str, 18536, Piraeus, Greece
                [2 ]Scoliosis & Spine Unit of "KAT" Orthopaedic Hospital, Athens, Greece
                [3 ]The South West London Elective Orthopaedic Centre, Denbies Wing, Epsom General Hospital, Dorking Road, Epsom, KT18 7EG, United Kingdom
                Article
                1748-7161-5-20
                10.1186/1748-7161-5-20
                2954959
                20858270
                f1b73562-47b1-472f-afd0-0a5a1f575ea2
                Copyright ©2010 Grivas et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

                This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 21 June 2010
                : 21 September 2010
                Categories
                Methodology

                Orthopedics
                Orthopedics

                Comments

                Comment on this article