WOS

Permanent URI for this collectionhttps://hdl.handle.net/11443/932

Browse

Subject: search.filters.subject.Brace

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    The classification of scoliosis braces developed by SOSORT with SRS, ISPO, and POSNA and approved by ESPRM
    (SPRINGER, 2022-01-01) Negrini, Stefano; Aulisa, Angelo Gabriele; Cerny, Pavel; de Mauroy, Jean Claude; McAviney, Jeb; Mills, Andrew; Donzelli, Sabrina; Grivas, Theodoros B.; Hresko, M. Timothy; Kotwicki, Tomasz; Labelle, Hubert; Marcotte, Louise; Matthews, Martin; O'Brien, Joe; Parent, Eric C.; Price, Nigel; Manuel, Rigo; Stikeleather, Luke; Vitale, Michael G.; Wong, Man Sang; Wood, Grant; Wynne, James; Zaina, Fabio; Bruno, Marco Brayda; Wursching, Suncica Bulat; Caglar, Yilgor; Cahill, Patrick; Dema, Eugenio; Knott, Patrick; Lebel, Andrea; Lein, Grigorii; Newton, Peter O.; Smith, Brian G.
    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.
  • No Thumbnail Available
    Item
    Does physiotherapy applied in conjunction with compression brace treatment in patients with pectus carinatum have efficacy? A preliminary randomized-controlled study
    (SPRINGER, 2020-01-01) Alaca, Nuray; Alaca, Ihsan; Yuksel, Mustafa
    Purpose Non-invasive treatment of pectus carinatum (PC) deformity includes the use of a compression brace and exercises. In this study, we aimed to examine the effect of a physiotherapy protocol applied as adjunct to compression brace treatment in patients with PC. Methods The study included 30 male patients between 11 and 18 years of age. Patients were randomly assigned into two groups: a brace treatment only group (Group 1) and a brace and physiotherapy group (Group 2). Patient demographics and disease-related properties, protrusion measurements, postural evaluations, deformity perceptions, life quality, and treatment satisfaction were evaluated. Results Although both groups showed improvements based on external chest measurements related to PC protrusion following treatment (p < 0.001), Group 2 had more benefit from the treatment (effect size > 0.36) and displayed greater improvement in maximum protrusion degree and lateral length values (p < 0.05). Additionally, we found that patient perception of deformity, posture, psychological life quality, and treatment satisfaction scores were significantly better in Group 2 (p < 0.05). Conclusion Owing to the satisfaction and additional benefits observed in the physiotherapy group, we think that a proper cardiopulmonary and musculoskeletal exercise program should be applied concurrently with brace treatment for patients with PC deformity. Nevertheless, long-term outcomes need to be clarified in future studies.