Skip to main content
Erschienen in:

Open Access 21.02.2022 | Review Article

The classification of scoliosis braces developed by SOSORT with SRS, ISPO, and POSNA and approved by ESPRM

verfasst von: Stefano Negrini, Angelo Gabriele Aulisa, Pavel Cerny, Jean Claude de Mauroy, Jeb McAviney, Andrew Mills, Sabrina Donzelli, Theodoros B. Grivas, M. Timothy Hresko, Tomasz Kotwicki, Hubert Labelle, Louise Marcotte, Martin Matthews, Joe O’Brien, Eric C. Parent, Nigel Price, Rigo Manuel, Luke Stikeleather, Michael G. Vitale, Man Sang Wong, Grant Wood, James Wynne, Fabio Zaina, Marco Brayda Bruno, Suncica Bulat Würsching, Caglar Yilgor, Patrick Cahill, Eugenio Dema, Patrick Knott, Andrea Lebel, Grigorii Lein, Peter O. Newton, Brian G. Smith

Erschienen in: European Spine Journal | Ausgabe 4/2022

download
DOWNLOAD
print
DRUCKEN
insite
SUCHEN

Abstract

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.
Hinweise

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s00586-022-07131-z.
A correction to this article is available online at https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s00586-022-07273-0.

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Introduction

Scoliosis is a three-dimensional deformity of the spine and the trunk [1], and it is diagnosed when there is a radiographic curvature with a Cobb angle greater than 10° [2]. Additionally, the international Society On Scoliosis Orthopedic and Rehabilitation Treatment (SOSORT) suggests observing all children with a rib prominence on the Adams forward bending test during growth, regardless of the curve’s severity [1]. Adolescent (diagnosis after age 10) idiopathic (unknown etiology) scoliosis (AIS) is the most common type [3]. Scoliosis treatments include observation, physiotherapeutic scoliosis specific exercises (PSSE), bracing, and surgery [1].
Studies have shown that brace treatment for AIS is effective [4, 5]. Nevertheless, there are substantial differences in results published in the literature [1]. These could explain the conflicting expert opinions in the past [6], even in the face of positive results coming from a prospective observational study (also called benchmarking controlled trial—a standard for health research [7]) conducted in the nineties by members of the Scoliosis Research Society (SRS) [8]. Two main factors could explain the published literature differences: technical skill (brace type and construction quality) and human influence (patients’ adherence to hours prescribed and wearing the brace correctly). Different groups found considerable differences in patients’ adherence to the bracing prescription [9, 10], while technical factors have not been studied as well, with very few comparisons among braces [1113]. It is common knowledge that the same brace is built differently by different orthotists, but no research exists on the topic. Experts agree about how to manage braced patients [14, 15], but not on the biomechanics of the correction [16]. Consequently, we are now in a situation where all braces are acceptable provided that the prescriber (physician) and the designer and fabricator (orthotist) are experts on that brace [15].
One of the factors impairing research and leading to clinical confusion in the field is the absence of a classification to understand differences and commonalities among braces. The only existing classification is common to all other orthoses, which is to classify braces according to the anatomical joints held underneath the brace—in the spine, these are the trunk regions. Unfortunately, according to this classification, almost all braces for spinal deformities fall in the thoracolumbosacral orthosis (TLSO) category, without other differentiations included. As a result, clinicians cannot generalize research results on one brace to another with the same biomechanical action. Even worse, we could be inaccurately generalizing data on one brace to another brace with different biomechanical actions. All that we know is their names, related to geography (Boston, Charleston, Lyon, Milwaukee, Providence, Wilmington, Sforzesco), their developers (Cheneau, Cheneau Rigo System), some of their features (ART—asymmetrical rigid three-dimensional, DDB—dynamic derotation brace, PASB—progressive action short brace, TriaC—three C, comfort, control, and cosmetics, TLI—THORACO-LUMBAR LORDOTIC INTERVENTION) or other (SpineCor).
Since its start, SOSORT has developed a series of consensus papers to increase knowledge in the field [1517]. In 2017, SOSORT started a process about braces nomenclature that continued in 2018 with the decision to focus on the absence of a valuable brace classification system. Unfortunately, this classification attempt failed (see Appendix 1 for more details). During the final consensus meeting, SOSORT decided to change the approach and use a different procedure based on expert opinion. This paper aims to report the results of this expert consensus to produce a classification of the brace types that will better describe and compare braces in future research.
Methods
We conducted a qualitative study based on an expert consensus process (Appendix 2). SOSORT initiated the process and invited other Spine societies to join. The SRS, through its Non-Operative Committee, the International Society of Prosthetics and Orthotics (ISPO), and the Pediatric Orthopedic Society of North America (POSNA), agreed to participate in the exercise. SOSORT invited all members of the 4 scientific societies to participate in the consensus. Participants were to categorize themselves as a Level 1 or 2 expert in bracing according to specific criteria listed in Table 1.
Table 1
Level of expertise required to be qualified as Level 1 or 2 experts during this consensus procedure
Expertise
Bracing prescriptions
Experience with different types
Scientific exposure
Level 1
500 braces/year, for at least 15 years
Three different types of braces, for at least two years
Attendance at 10 scoliosis specific international meetings in the last 15 years
Level 2
200 braces/year, for at least ten years
Not required
Attendance at 5 scoliosis specific international meetings in the last ten years
To be qualified at a specific level of expertise, all criteria had to be met
We asked Level 1 experts to describe a classification system if they had already developed one. We developed a Classification Description Sheet by piloting, and we used it to standardize the collection of the classifications and facilitate their comparisons. We invited all Level 1 and 2 experts to participate in the consensus meeting with SOSORT Executive and Advisory Board members and official representatives nominated by the participating scientific societies. Three weeks before the meeting, participants received all the materials, including a report of commonalities and differences in the experts’ classification according to a thematic analysis performed by the coordinator (SN).
During the consensus, the different classification systems were presented, and the coordinator showed the thematic analysis and comparison among these classifications. After a general discussion, anonymous voting procedures performed with Socrative software (www.​socrative.​com) allowed us to define the classification items, their names, and the classification options for each item. The level of agreement required to accept each concept was 80%. The names and classification options required a simple majority, with a second vote for the two most popular options if no option reached 50% during the first vote.
After the consensus meeting, the authors explained the classification items and classified all braces with published results [18]. Finally, the promoting scientific societies invited other scientific societies to support the classification.

Results

The paper’s six primary authors (SN, AGA, PC, JCdM, JMA, and AM) were all Level 1 experts and developed the initial classifications. The consensus meeting included 26 Level 1 or 2 participants, with 16 other Level 1 and 2 experts providing relevant input to the process. All 42 participants were a member of one of the involved scientific societies (32 SOSORT, 20 SRS, 7 POSNA, 6 ISPO); moreover, there were four members each from ESPRM, Eurospine, International Research Society on Spinal Disorders (IRSSD), International Society for the Study of the Lumbar Spine (ISSLS), North American Spine Society (NASS).
The thematic analysis identified some basic concepts that were common among the developers’ classifications, and the developers’ priority scores allowed us to calculate a median score for each of them (Table 2). To facilitate the consensus meeting, the coordinator provisionally defined each of these concepts. The thematic concept of “action,” “rigidity,” and “topography-anatomy” reached a complete agreement among proposers (100%). The concepts with more than one proposer had 83% (“plane”), 67% (“symmetry-shape”), and 33% (“wearing time” and “construction”) agreement, respectively. All the other concepts had no agreement.
Table 2
Classifications proposed and concordance (with percent agreement and median score) found with the thematic analysis
Proposal of the developers
%A
MP
Thematic concept
AGA
PC
JCDM
JMA
AM
SN
1. Action*
1. Biomechanical action
1. Mechanism of action
1. Action
2. Corrective action
1. Biomechanical action
100
1
Action
8. Pressure
4. Sagittal curves
1. Applied force
6. Rigidity
2. Rigidity
2. Rigidity
5. Rigidity
1. Applied force
2. Rigidity
100
2
Rigidity
3. Anatomy
3. Topography
4. Anatomy
6. Topography
5. Treatable curves
4. Topography
100
4
Topography- anatomy
4. Plane
1. Mechanism of action
3. Main plane of action
3. Planes
83
3
Plane
2. Shape
4. Shape
3. Symmetry
2. Symmetry
67
2
Symmetry-shape
7. Wearing time
6. Wearing time
33
6
Wearing Time
-
5. Segmentation
5. Valves
33
6
Construction
6. Splints
7. Closure
3. Growth modulation
 
3
Tissue
4. Nerves Muscles Ligaments
5. Treatable curves
 
5
Treatment
The numbers indicate the order of the importance of the classification concept provided by each developer
AGA Angelo Gabriele Aulisa, PC Pavel Cerny, JCDM: Jean Claude De Mauroy, JMA Jeb McAviney, AM Andrew Mills, SN Stefano Negrini, %A percent of agreement, MP: median priority
*The concept “action” includes more than one classification item for three proposers
During the consensus meeting, the experts accepted all the concepts with at least 50% agreement, except for one. They finally decided that the concept “symmetry-shape” was inappropriate since all braces for scoliosis are asymmetrical. “Construction” was split into two sub-items: “valves” and “closure.” Participants rejected all the concepts below 50% (“wearing time,” “tissue,” and “treatment”). Finally, participants gave each concept its final name and defined the classification options (Table 3).
Table 3
Results from the consensus meeting with the final classification item names and options (bold)
Thematic concept
Final classification item
Classification options
Agreement
Item (%)
Options (%)
Action
Primary action
Bending
92
55
Detorsion
longation
Movement
Push-up
Three points
Rigidity
Rigidity
Very rigid
92
58
Rigid
Elastic
Topography-anatomy
Anatomy
CTLSO
92
100
TLSO
LSO
Planes/action
Primary corrective plane
Frontal
85
62
Sagittal
Transverse
Frontal & Sagittal
Frontal & Transverse
Sagittal & Transverse
Three-dimensional
Construction
Construction
 
88
 
– Valves
Monocot
82
100
Bivalve
Multisegmented
– Closure
Dorsal
93
100
Lateral
Ventral
The consensus rejected the thematic concept “symmetry-shape” (agreement < 50%)
Table 4 reports the definition of the terms used in the classification. There was a consensus that these definitions had to be intuitive because of the current lack of precise knowledge of most braces’ biomechanical effects on the trunk and spine [16]. The primary authors’ expertise provided these definitions, and the other experts' consensus formally accepted them.
Table 4
The definitions of the terms used in the brace classification system
Term
Definition
Primary action
The overall primary mechanism of action of the brace. The terms used do not describe an exclusive biomechanical action but the prevalent one*
Bending
Braces with a global action of bending the trunk toward curve correction (in the direction of its convexity), mainly in the coronal/frontal plane
Detorsion
Braces with global action on the whole spine through mutual derotation of different trunk regions, mainly in the transverse (horizontal or axial) plane
Elongation
Braces with a global action in elongation/decompression of the trunk and spine achieved through distraction effect of cervical component, mainly along the vertical axis
Movement
Braces that guide the active movement of the patient through specific constraints
Push-up
Braces with a global action of elongation and localized detorsion of the spine achieved through three-dimensional compression of the trunk’s pathological prominences in a caudo-cranial direction
Three points
Braces with one or more triplets of corrective pressure forces on the curves to be corrected. They can be on a single plane or multiplanar. They are located one on the apex and the other two above and below
Rigidity
The overall rigidity of the whole brace’s structure. It depends on the material type, its thickness, and the brace design and construction*
Very rigid
Braces with (almost) full trunk coverage requiring hinges (or similar) to allow opening due to material rigidity
Rigid
Braces of thermoplastic rigid material that can be deformed (opens without hinges if monocot) and multisegmented braces with uncovered areas of the trunk
Elastic
Braces of elastic or (semi-) flexible plastic or multiple materials allowing movement of the trunk and spine
Anatomy
Regions of the spine (joint levels) where the orthosis is located. According to the mechanisms of action, they can also control curves in more cranial spine regions
CTLSO
Cervico-thoraco-lumbo-sacral orthosis
TLSO
Thoraco-lumbo-sacral orthosis
LSO
Lumbo-sacral orthosis
Primary corrective plane
Main plane of action of the brace. In the case of two planes, the appropriate terms are combined
Frontal
Braces with primary action in the coronal/frontal plane to bring vertebral bodies toward the spinal midline
Transverse
Braces with primary action in the transverse/horizontal/axial plane to rotate the vertebral bodies toward the spinal midline
Sagittal
Braces with primary action on the sagittal plane, normalizing the physiological curvature of lumbar lordosis and/or thoracic kyphosis
Three-dimensional
Braces with direct action in all three planes at the same time
Valves
Pieces of material connected to form the brace
Monocot
Rigid braces built in one single shell
Bivalve
Rigid braces built in two connected shells
Multisegmented
Rigid braces built in more than two connected pieces and elastic braces
Closure
Location of the opening to don/doff the brace. In the case of more than one closure, the two appropriate terms are combined
Ventral
Braces with anterior closure
Dorsal
Braces with posterior closure
Lateral
Braces with side closure
Participants accepted that the definitions are intuitive because of the current lack of precise knowledge of most braces’ biomechanical effects on the trunk and spine [16]. The primary authors’ expertise provided these definitions, and the other experts' consensus formally accepted them
*By definition, all braces act on the trunk three-dimensionally. Consequently, each action or corrective plane of braces must be considered the primary, not exclusive
Finally, Table 5 presents the classification of the braces currently used and published. Participants in the consensus provided the classification of each brace with this order of priority: (1) the developer, (2) a researcher on that brace, and (3) a Level 1 expert currently using/building that brace.
Table 5
Classification of the braces currently available and published [18]
Anatomy
Rigidity
Primary action
Primary corrective plane
Construction
Closure
Brace name
TLSO
Very rigid
Detorsion
Frontal & Sagittal
Bivalve
Ventral
ART
Push-up
Three-dimensional
Bivalve
Ventral
Sforzesco
Rigid
Bending
Frontal
Monocot
Ventral
Charleston
Providence
Detorsion
Three-dimensional
Monocot
Ventral
Chêneau
Dynamic derotating
Rigo-Chêneau System
Push-up
Three-dimensional
Bivalve
Ventral
Sibilla
Three-point
Frontal
Monocot
Ventral
Wilmington
Frontal & transverse
Monocot
Dorsal
Boston
Sagittal
Monocot
Dorsal
TLI
Three-dimensional
Multisegmented
Ventral
Lyon
Elastic
Movement
Frontal & transverse
Multisegmented
Lateral
TriaC
Three-dimensional
Multisegmented
Frontal
Spinecor
CTLSO
Rigid
Elongation
Frontal & sagittal
Multisegmented
Dorsal
Milwaukee
LSO
Rigid
Detorsion
Frontal & transverse
Monocot
Ventral
PASB
Participants in the consensus provided the classification of each brace with this order of priority: (1) the developer, (2) a researcher on that brace, and (3) a Level 1 expert currently using/building that brace
ART Asymmetric rigid three-dimensional; PASB progressive action short brace, TLI thoracolumbar lordotic intervention; TriaC three C, comfort, control, and cosmetics
After the process concluded, the European Society of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine accepted to support the classification.

Discussion

This paper reports on the consensus procedure developed with worldwide experts to define the first brace classification going beyond their given names. It is the extended effort of the Brace Classification Study Group formed some years ago by SOSORT which resulted in the Brace classification part one, Atlas and definitions, (https://​www.​sosort.​org/​bibliography/​#guidelines). The overall aim of developing a classification system is to increase knowledge and allow better research in the field. The main limitation of this study is that the classification and corresponding definitions used are intuitive and based on expertise and consensus. Nevertheless, the experts recognized that this was unavoidable due to the current research knowledge, with a paucity of biomechanical data on specific braces, comparative studies of braces, etc. The authors and supporting scientific societies recognized the need during this first classification to start with such a consensus procedure hoping that will lead to something better in the future. The paper also has some strengths. The qualitative methodology of this study is appropriate since it followed all the classical stages of Consensus development. The experts were required to satisfy very demanding criteria and were gathered worldwide using the leading scientific societies on scoliosis and other spinal deformities. All the primary scientific societies focused on scoliosis care have been involved. Without any prior consultation, the experts showed good agreement before the consensus meeting, demonstrating a common understanding in the field. The consensus agreement was higher than the minimum required, and this showed the experts’ commonalities. Nevertheless, there was complete agreement that this classification is only a starting point for research and future evolution.
In all fields of medicine, classifications are essential and lead to improved mutual understanding and communication among researchers and clinicians. A classic example is the World Health Organization classification family, including the International Classification of Diseases (ICD) (https://​www.​who.​int/​standards/​classifications/​classification-of-diseases) used worldwide for more than a century to compare Health Systems, and the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health (ICF) (https://​www.​who.​int/​standards/​classifications/​international-classification-of-functioning-disability-and-health) used as a common understanding framework in medicine, rehabilitation, education, and other areas. In the field of spinal disorders, we could cite for their the importance of the Pfirrmann grading system [19], the Modic changes of Magnetic Resonance Imaging [20], and the NASS lumbar disc nomenclature project [21]. Finally, in the field of spinal deformity, the Ponseti classification is still valid in the non-operative treatment of scoliosis [1], or the Lenke Classification for surgical recommendations in AIS [22] or the Schwab-SRS Classification for adult scoliosis [23]. Classifications are fundamental as a basis for research and the growth of a specific field.
The non-operative field of scoliosis treatment is currently growing after years of stagnation [24]. The birth of SOSORT in the years 2004/5 and its consensus papers created a basis of understanding and reinvigorated research on non-operative treatment [1517]. The final push came from the Weinstein/Dolan BrAIST study in 2014 that reinforced the efficacy of bracing [4] after years of doubt [6]. SOSORT and the SRS Non-Operative Committee regularly collaborate and establish new criteria for standardizing research studies in the field [25]. The development of this brace classification is a natural evolution of this collaboration.
In clinics, practical knowledge of bracing has evolved and improved over time. The Boston brace in 2021 shares some qualities of the 1970 version but incorporates three-dimensional principles in design, with one derivative of this brace being the Dynamic Derotation Brace [26]. The Chêneau brace has evolved to Rigo-Chêneau [27]. A new class of braces was born with the Sforzesco [28], followed by the ART brace [29]. The very rigid plastic braces are comparable to casts [30] and expanded the indications into curve magnitudes that were previously treated surgically [5, 31, 32]. These evolutions complement a better understanding of the importance of a treating team surrounding the patient, including a physician, an orthotist, and a physiotherapist [33]. Progress in bracing includes monitors [9], CAD/CAM technologies, and three-dimensional printing [34]. Also, imaging has changed with the EOS system [35], and ultrasound technology is probably opening a new era in conservative treatment [36]. In this context, a brace classification system could advance the field from individualism to shared understanding and better science.
Scoliosis braces are still handcrafted products [37], where experience, continuous application, and even intuition have the most crucial role [15]. Still, it is more the art of medicine than the science behind it. Bracing results depend on the skills of the orthotist in design and fabrication, the physician in prescribing and checking the brace, the patient in adherence to treatment, and the team (physiotherapist included) in empowering the patient and family [15]. Research on bracing is increasingly looking into factors like in-brace results, wear-time dose, sagittal balance, rotational control, three-dimensional results, the rigidity of the material, prognostic factors, quality of life in adulthood, growth plate modulation, overall brace balance, and other areas. A brace classification improves communication in research by adding standardization of treatment descriptions which will promote reproducibility of results without jeopardizing the art inherent in bracing.
The primary actions are descriptions by the developers of the main corrective principles each brace follows. Nevertheless, we have to recognize that it is not so simple. Most of the braces follow more than one principle. Some orthotists could build one type of brace following a principle different from that devised by the developer and reported here. In individual cases, the developers themselves add features to their braces to search different primary actions according to individual’s needs [38]. All these possibilities support the use of a brace classification system. Ideally, all the authors of research papers should classify the brace they used, specifying the primary intended action. By detailing which items from the classification each brace represents, it will be possible to identify characteristics most closely related to outcomes.
Some of the experts suggested that primary actions could be considered from different perspectives, mainly biomechanical. For example, in such a case, mechanical elongation action on the spine would include the two primary actions, “traction” and “push-up,” where the difference would lie on the cranial or caudal starting point, respectively. There was a consensus that these two primary actions are different in bracing since cranial pulling eliminates the sagittal physiological curves, while caudal pushing can be three-dimensional. CAD/CAM technology introduced other biomechanical correction possibilities, like lateral drift, that one expert proposed in this classification. The consensus did not introduce these terms as distinctive of one specific current class of braces, even though we could have evolutions in the future. A discussion arose around the primary action “detorsion,” considered biomechanically very similar to the three-point pressure used in many brace designs. Detorsion is ultimately constituted by two coupled three-point pressure systems applied in the transverse plane. There was a consensus to keep the distinction because some braces mainly use a single three-point system different from the detorsion concept. Another interesting discussion was if a detorsion primary action would necessarily imply a three-dimensional primary corrective plane. Experts agreed that there is a distinction between the planes where correction is sought (e.g., frontal and sagittal) and how to achieve this correction (detorsion).
The definition of rigidity was another difficult task. There was consensus that rigidity was a factor to consider and that it depends not only on the strength of the material. Orthotists can use different materials to achieve specific rigidity, like polycarbonate for very rigid, polyethylene for rigid, and copolymers with EVA or textile for elastic. However, many other physical factors influence rigidity, like material thickness and brace building through three-dimensional spatial shaping, reinforcements, cuts, and segmentation. A thin, deeply curved shell can have higher rigidity than a flat or shallowly shaped area of thicker material. In some designs, the rigidity increases due to changes in the material orientation angle, with the need to find solutions to allow the patient to don/doff a monocot brace. Consequently, there was consensus that the distinction between rigid and very rigid is still subjective and that this classification should serve as a stimulus for further research on the topic. It is also possible to distinguish between elastic (stretching, elongation possible) and inelastic (impossible to stretch) material [39, 40]. The first has also been defined as dynamic elastomeric fabric orthoses [41, 42], used in idiopathic and secondary scoliosis. Again, these distinctions could be developed in future editions of this classification.
The other classification items are anatomy, primary corrective plane, and construction. Experts discussed symmetry, widely used to distinguish some braces from others, but finally decided that braces to treat scoliosis cannot be symmetric and that the distinction was not useful. Other proposed items, like wearing hours and treatable curves, were excluded because they were not specific to describe braces, while influenced tissues had neither agreement nor enough research to justify their use.
This common terminology could be used as a standard reference when performing research. We can expect biomechanical studies, finite element modeling, and benchmarking studies to compare the different brace classes. Education would be simplified by the classification, allowing proper comparison and descriptions of the essential features of each brace. When it comes to practical applications, reimbursement systems could go beyond given names with implications for third-party payers, orthotists, and patients. Orthotists who are used to one given name brace could check if their application corresponds to the primary action intended by the brace developer; they could also approach another brace to verify another primary action. These are only simple examples, but we could probably expect more than this.

Conclusion

This is the first edition of a brace classification that we expect to change with better understanding and more research in the future. It is based on expertise more than evidence, but we also must recognize that expertise is the first step of the pyramid of evidence when no better research data are available. Moreover, this expertise is shared worldwide among some of the best brace experts. The involvement and support of the leading scientific societies in the field should guarantee its dissemination. We can expect that the broad application of the classification could have great value for research, education, practice, and the overall growth of conservative approaches to spinal deformities.
Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://​creativecommons.​org/​licenses/​by/​4.​0/​.

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Unsere Produktempfehlungen

e.Med Interdisziplinär

Kombi-Abonnement

Für Ihren Erfolg in Klinik und Praxis - Die beste Hilfe in Ihrem Arbeitsalltag

Mit e.Med Interdisziplinär erhalten Sie Zugang zu allen CME-Fortbildungen und Fachzeitschriften auf SpringerMedizin.de.

e.Med Orthopädie & Unfallchirurgie

Kombi-Abonnement

Mit e.Med Orthopädie & Unfallchirurgie erhalten Sie Zugang zu CME-Fortbildungen der Fachgebiete, den Premium-Inhalten der dazugehörigen Fachzeitschriften, inklusive einer gedruckten Zeitschrift Ihrer Wahl.

Anhänge

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Literatur
8.
Zurück zum Zitat Nachemson AL, Peterson LE (1995) Effectiveness of treatment with a brace in girls who have adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. A prospective, controlled study based on data from the Brace Study of the Scoliosis Research Society. J Bone Joint Surg Am 77:815–822CrossRef Nachemson AL, Peterson LE (1995) Effectiveness of treatment with a brace in girls who have adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. A prospective, controlled study based on data from the Brace Study of the Scoliosis Research Society. J Bone Joint Surg Am 77:815–822CrossRef
9.
Zurück zum Zitat Donzelli S, Zaina F, Negrini S (2012) In defense of adolescents: they really do use braces for the hours prescribed, if good help is provided. Results from a prospective everyday clinic cohort using thermobrace. Scoliosis 7:12. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-7161-7-12 Donzelli S, Zaina F, Negrini S (2012) In defense of adolescents: they really do use braces for the hours prescribed, if good help is provided. Results from a prospective everyday clinic cohort using thermobrace. Scoliosis 7:12. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1186/​1748-7161-7-12
18.
Zurück zum Zitat Zaina F, De Mauroy JC, Grivas T et al (2014) Bracing for scoliosis in 2014: state of the art. Eur J Phys Rehab Med 50:93–110 Zaina F, De Mauroy JC, Grivas T et al (2014) Bracing for scoliosis in 2014: state of the art. Eur J Phys Rehab Med 50:93–110
19.
Zurück zum Zitat Pfirrmann CW, Metzdorf A, Zanetti M et al (2001) Magnetic resonance classification of lumbar intervertebral disc degeneration. Spine 26:1873–1878CrossRef Pfirrmann CW, Metzdorf A, Zanetti M et al (2001) Magnetic resonance classification of lumbar intervertebral disc degeneration. Spine 26:1873–1878CrossRef
22.
Zurück zum Zitat Lenke LG, Betz RR, Clements D et al (2002) Curve prevalence of a new classification of operative adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: Does classification correlate with treatment? Spine 27:604–611CrossRef Lenke LG, Betz RR, Clements D et al (2002) Curve prevalence of a new classification of operative adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: Does classification correlate with treatment? Spine 27:604–611CrossRef
28.
Zurück zum Zitat Negrini S, Marchini G (2007) Efficacy of the symmetric, patient-oriented, rigid, three-dimensional, active (SPoRT) concept of bracing for scoliosis: a prospective study of the Sforzesco versus Lyon brace. Eura Medicophys 43:171–181. Discussion 183–184 Negrini S, Marchini G (2007) Efficacy of the symmetric, patient-oriented, rigid, three-dimensional, active (SPoRT) concept of bracing for scoliosis: a prospective study of the Sforzesco versus Lyon brace. Eura Medicophys 43:171–181. Discussion 183–184
33.
Zurück zum Zitat Tavernaro M, Pellegrini A, Tessadri F, et al (2012) 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 7:17. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-7161-7-17 Tavernaro M, Pellegrini A, Tessadri F, et al (2012) 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 7:17. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1186/​1748-7161-7-17
35.
Zurück zum Zitat Dubousset J, Charpak G, Dorion I, et al (2005) [A new 2D and 3D imaging approach to musculoskeletal physiology and pathology with low-dose radiation and the standing position: the EOS system]. Bull Acad Natl Med 189:287–297. Discussion 297–300 Dubousset J, Charpak G, Dorion I, et al (2005) [A new 2D and 3D imaging approach to musculoskeletal physiology and pathology with low-dose radiation and the standing position: the EOS system]. Bull Acad Natl Med 189:287–297. Discussion 297–300
40.
Zurück zum Zitat Coillard C, Circo AB, Rivard CH (2014) A prospective randomized controlled trial of the natural history of idiopathic scoliosis versus treatment with the Spinecor brace. Sosort Award 2011 Winner. Eur J Phys Rehab Med 50:479–487 Coillard C, Circo AB, Rivard CH (2014) A prospective randomized controlled trial of the natural history of idiopathic scoliosis versus treatment with the Spinecor brace. Sosort Award 2011 Winner. Eur J Phys Rehab Med 50:479–487
Metadaten
Titel
The classification of scoliosis braces developed by SOSORT with SRS, ISPO, and POSNA and approved by ESPRM
verfasst von
Stefano Negrini
Angelo Gabriele Aulisa
Pavel Cerny
Jean Claude de Mauroy
Jeb McAviney
Andrew Mills
Sabrina Donzelli
Theodoros B. Grivas
M. Timothy Hresko
Tomasz Kotwicki
Hubert Labelle
Louise Marcotte
Martin Matthews
Joe O’Brien
Eric C. Parent
Nigel Price
Rigo Manuel
Luke Stikeleather
Michael G. Vitale
Man Sang Wong
Grant Wood
James Wynne
Fabio Zaina
Marco Brayda Bruno
Suncica Bulat Würsching
Caglar Yilgor
Patrick Cahill
Eugenio Dema
Patrick Knott
Andrea Lebel
Grigorii Lein
Peter O. Newton
Brian G. Smith
Publikationsdatum
21.02.2022
Verlag
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Erschienen in
European Spine Journal / Ausgabe 4/2022
Print ISSN: 0940-6719
Elektronische ISSN: 1432-0932
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-022-07131-z

Arthropedia

Grundlagenwissen der Arthroskopie und Gelenkchirurgie erweitert durch Fallbeispiele, Videos und Abbildungen. Zur Fortbildung und Wissenserweiterung, verfasst und geprüft von Expertinnen und Experten der Gesellschaft für Arthroskopie und Gelenkchirurgie (AGA).


Jetzt entdecken!

Neu im Fachgebiet Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie

Positive Langzeitdaten zu Inlays aus hochvernetztem Polyethylen

10-Jahres-Daten einer randomisierten Studie sprechen dafür, dass Knie-TEP-Inlays aus hochvernetztem (HXLPE) und konventionellem Polyethylen selten Revisionen erfordern – und HXLPE in puncto Abnutzung vielleicht sogar die Nase vorn hat.

Was bringt die Spritze ins Gelenk bei Arthrose?

Ein hochkarätiges Studienteam hat untersucht, wie gut intraartikulär verabreichte Substanzen zur Behandlung von Knie- und Hüftarthrose wirken. Für die meisten ist die Wirksamkeit alles andere als klar, einige werden offenbar überschätzt, für eine Substanz wird deutlich, dass sie vor allem schadet.

Leitlinienkonformes Management thermischer Verletzungen

Thermische Verletzungen gehören zu den schwerwiegendsten Traumen und hinterlassen oft langfristige körperliche und psychische Spuren. Die aktuelle S2k-Leitlinie „Behandlung thermischer Verletzungen im Kindesalter (Verbrennung, Verbrühung)“ bietet eine strukturierte Übersicht über das empfohlene Vorgehen.

Positive Daten für supraskapulären Nervenblock bei Schultersteife

Daten einer aktuellen Metaanalyse sprechen dafür, dass eine Blockade des Nervus suprascapularis bei Schultersteife mit Blick auf Funktion und Schmerzlinderung mindestens so effektiv ist wie eine Physiotherapie oder intraartikulär injizierte Steroide.

Update Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.