Brace Treatment Is Associated with Lower Curve Progression in Moderate Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis, While Psychosocial Outcomes Are Driven by Depressive Symptoms and Curve Progression
Journal of Clinical Medicine, cilt.15, sa.6, 2026 (SCI-Expanded, Scopus)
- Yayın Türü: Makale / Tam Makale
- Cilt numarası: 15 Sayı: 6
- Basım Tarihi: 2026
- Doi Numarası: 10.3390/jcm15062375
- Dergi Adı: Journal of Clinical Medicine
- Derginin Tarandığı İndeksler: Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-EXPANDED), Scopus, Chemical Abstracts Core, EMBASE, Academic Search Ultimate (EBSCO), Health Research Premium Collection (ProQuest)
- Anahtar Kelimeler: adolescent idiopathic scoliosis, body image, brace treatment, quality of life, spinopelvic balance
- Ondokuz Mayıs Üniversitesi Adresli: Evet
Özet
Background: The impact of thoracolumbosacral orthosis (TLSO) bracing on sagittal spinopelvic alignment and psychosocial outcomes in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) remains debated. Methods: This retrospective comparative study included 120 girls (10–18 years) with AIS (baseline Cobb angle 20–40°) and skeletal immaturity (Risser 0–1). Patients were managed with a thoracolumbosacral orthosis (TLSO) brace (n = 60) or observation alone (n = 60). Standing posteroanterior and lateral full-spine radiographs were obtained at baseline and at 24 ± 6 months; follow-up radiographs were acquired out of brace after a standardized 48 h brace-free interval. They were used to measure coronal and sagittal spinopelvic parameters. Patient-reported outcomes included the Scoliosis Research Society-22r (SRS-22r), Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory (PedsQL), Spinal Appearance Questionnaire (SAQ), Trunk Appearance Perception Scale (TAPS), and Beck Depression Inventory (BDI). The primary endpoint was curve progression (≥5° increase or exceeding 40°) at 24 months. Multivariable regression was used to adjust for baseline Cobb angle and maturity. Mean follow-up was 24 ± 6 months. Results: Mean Cobb change was +1.2° in the brace group vs. +7.3° in the observation group (group × time interaction p < 0.001). Progression (≥5°) occurred in 15% vs. 45%, respectively, and 18% of observed patients exceeded 40° (risk ratio 0.33, 95% CI 0.17–0.65; number needed to treat 4, 95% CI 3–7). Sagittal spinopelvic parameters showed no significant group-by-time interaction. No significant between-group differences were observed in SRS-22r, PedsQL, SAQ, TAPS, or BDI at baseline or follow-up. Patients with curve progression exhibited worse appearance-related scores. In multivariable analysis, depressive symptoms were the strongest determinant of PedsQL (β = −0.55, p < 0.001). Conclusions: Brace treatment was associated with reduced curve progression in girls with moderate AIS. Over approximately two years of follow-up, we did not observe clinically relevant between-group differences in sagittal spinopelvic alignment or psychosocial patient-reported outcomes. Given the retrospective, non-randomized design and self-reported adherence, psychosocial findings should be interpreted cautiously and require confirmation in prospective, objectively monitored, psychologically informed bracing studies.