Use of torso orthoses in the treatment of congenital spinal deformities: A literature review

Cover Page


Cite item

Full Text

Open Access Open Access
Restricted Access Access granted
Restricted Access Subscription or Fee Access

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Congenital malformations of the spine require urgent treatment, despite the popularity of this problem. The choice of the term and method of surgical treatment of congenital spinal deformities with vertebral malformations does not have diametrically opposed views in the domestic and foreign literature, but the scientific discussion continues regarding the use of orthotics. Currently, several designs of orthoses on the trunk are known worldwide, which can be used not only for idiopathic but also for congenital scoliosis. А unified view of the use of this type of complex treatment is necessary, but there are opposite opinions in the scientific literature.

AIM: This study aimed to analyze publications that present the use of torso orthoses in the treatment of congenital malformations of the spine.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: We searched for data in the open electronic databases of PubMed and e-LIBRARY using the following keywords and phrases: congenital deformity of the spine, congenital scoliosis, orthosis, and effectiveness of orthosis. The search covered 30 years of literature.

RESULTS: Several authors have reported a significant correction of the congenital curves using orthotics, but this issue has not been sufficiently studied and is still at the research stage. Some specialists consider the formation or progression after the operation of compensatory counter-curve above or below the established metal structure, which can be corrected not only by repeated surgery, but also by using orthoses.

CONCLUSIONS: There is a clear trend toward complex treatment of children with isolated congenital malformations of the spine, including a reasonable combination of surgical treatment and orthotics. In Europe and Russia, preference is given to the Rigo system Cheneau brace.

Full Text

Restricted Access

About the authors

Ignatij А. Redchenko

H. Turner National Medical Research Center for Children’s Orthopedics and Trauma Surgery; Ortetica

Author for correspondence.
Email: ria@scoliologic.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0001-6055-6295
SPIN-code: 2072-1986

MD, PhD Student

Russian Federation, Saint Petersburg; Saint Petersburg

Sergei V. Vissarionov

H. Turner National Medical Research Center for Children’s Orthopedics and Trauma Surgery

Email: vissarionovs@gmail.com
ORCID iD: 0000-0003-4235-5048
SPIN-code: 7125-4930
Scopus Author ID: 6504128319

MD, PhD, D.Sc., Professor, Corresponding Member of RAS

Russian Federation, Saint Petersburg

Maxim G. Gusev

Ortetica

Email: llp@scoliologic.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-7976-0795

MD, PhD

Russian Federation, Saint Petersburg

Grigoriy A. Lein

H. Turner National Medical Research Center for Children’s Orthopedics and Trauma Surgery; Ortetica

Email: lein@scoliologic.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0001-7904-8688

MD, PhD

Russian Federation, Saint Petersburg; Saint Petersburg

Ivan V. Pavlov

Scoliologic.ru; Styllian

Email: pavlov@scoliologic.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-0412-6351

MD, PhD

Russian Federation, Saint Petersburg; Saint Petersburg

References

  1. Feng Y, Hai Y, Zhao S, Zang L. Hemivertebra resection with posterior unilateral intervertebral fusion and transpedicular fixation for congenital scoliosis: results with at least 3 years of follow-up. Eur Spine J. 2016;25(10):3274–3281. doi: 10.1007/s00586-016-4556-7
  2. Passias PG, Poorman GW, Jalai CM, et al. Incidence of congenital spinal abnormalities among pediatric patients and their association with scoliosis and systemic anomalies. J Pediatr Orthop. 2019;39(8):e608–e613. doi: 10.1097/BPO.0000000000001066
  3. Vissarionov SV, Syundyukov AR, Kokushin DN, et al. A comparative analysis of the surgical treatment of preschool children with congenital spinal deformation and isolated hemivertebra from the combined and dorsal approaches. Pediatric Traumatology, Orthopaedics and Reconstructive Surgery. 2019;7(4):5–14. (In Russ.). doi: 10.17816/PTORS745-14
  4. Ryabykh SО. The choice of surgical approach for congenital spinal deformity caused by multiple vertebral malformations. Hir Pozvonoc. 2014;(2):21–28. (In Russ.)
  5. Chang DG, Kim JH, Ha KY, et al. Posterior hemivertebra resection and short segment fusion with pedicle screw fixation for congenital scoliosis in children younger than 10 years. Spine. 2015;40(8):E484–E491. doi: 10.1097/brs.0000000000000809
  6. Kaspiris A, Grivas TB, Weiss HR, et al. Surgical and conservative treatment of patients with congenital scoliosis: а search for long-term results. Scoliosis. 2011;4(6):12. doi: 10.1186/1748-7161-6-12
  7. Chang DG, Yang JH, Suk S. et al. Fractional curve progression with maintenance of fusion mass in congenital scoliosis: An 18-year follow-up of a case report. Medicine (Baltimore). 2017;96(36):e7746. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000007746
  8. Chêneau J. Corset-Chêneau. Manuel d’orthopédie des scolioses suivant la technique originale. Paris: Éditions Frison-Roche; 1994.
  9. Сhêneau J. Das original Chêneau-Skoliozen-Korset. Dortmund: Orthopädie–Technik; 1997.
  10. Rigo M, Jelačić M. Brace technology thematic series: the 3D Rigo Chêneau-type brace. Scoliosis Spinal Disord. 2017;(12):10. doi: 10.1186/s13013-017-0114-2
  11. Grivas TB, Kaspiris A. European braces widely used for conservative scoliosis treatment. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2010;(158):157–166.
  12. Weiss HR, Werkmann M. “Brace Technology” Thematic Series — The ScoliOlogiC(R) Cheneau light brace in the treatment of scoliosis. Scoliosis. 2010;(5):19. doi: 10.1186/1748-7161-5-19
  13. Rigo M, Villagrasa M, Gallo D. A specific scoliosis classification correlating with brace treatment: description and reliability. Scoliosis. 2010;5(1):1. doi: 10.1186/1748-7161-5-1
  14. Weiss HR, Kleban A. Development of CAD/CAM based brace models for the treatment of patients with scoliosis-classification based approach versus finite element modelling. Asian Spine J. 2015;9(5):661–667. doi: 10.4184/asj.2015.9.5.661
  15. Rigo M, Jelačić M. Brace technology thematic series: the 3D Rigo Chêneau-type brace. Scoliosis and Spinal Disorders. 2017;(12):10. doi: 10.1186/s13013-017-0114-2
  16. Maruyama T, Takesita K, Kitagawa T, et al. Milwaukee brace. Physiother Theory Pract. 2011;27(1):43–46. doi: 10.3109/09593985.2010.503992
  17. Guo J, Liu Zh, Feng LV, et al. Pelvic tilt and trunk inclination: new predictive factors in curve progression during the Milwaukee bracing for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Eur Spine J. 2012;21(10):2050–2058. doi: 10.1007/s00586-012-2409-6
  18. Misterska E, Głowacki J, Głowacki M, et al. Long-term effects of conservative treatment of Milwaukee brace on body image and mental health of patients with idiopathic scoliosis. PLoS One. 2018;13(2):e0193447. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.01934472
  19. Webster JB, Murphy DP. Atlas of orthoses and assistive devices. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 2019. doi: 10.1016/C2014-0-04193-7
  20. Wynne JH. The Boston brace and TriaC systems disability and rehabilitation. Assistive Technology. 2008;3(3):130–135. doi: 10.1080/17483100801903988
  21. Heemskerk JL, Wijdicks SP, Altena MC, et al. Spinal growth in patients with juvenile idiopathic scoliosis treated with Boston Brace: A retrospective study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2020;45(14):976–982. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000003435
  22. Karimi MT, Rabczuk T. Evaluation of the efficiency of Boston brace on scoliotic curve control: A review of literature. J Spinal Cord Med. 2020;43(6):824–831 doi: 10.1080/10790268.2019.1578104
  23. Stehen H, Pripp AH, Lange JE, et al. Predictors for long-term curve progression after Boston brace treatment of idiopathic scoliosis. Eur J Phys Rehab Med. 2021;57(1):101–109. doi: 10.23736/S1973-9087.20.06190-0
  24. Lee ChS, Hwang ChJ, Kim DJ, et al. Effectiveness of the Charleston night-time bending brace in the treatment of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. J Pediatr Orthop. 2012;32(4):368–372. doi: 10.1097/BPO.0b013e3182561193
  25. Davis L, Murphy JS, Shaw KA, et al. Nighttime bracing with the Providence thoracolumbosacral orthosis for treatment of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: A retrospective consecutive clinical series. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2019;43(2):158–162. doi: 10.1177/0309364618792727
  26. Plewka B, Sibiński M, Synder M, et al. Clinical assessment of the efficacy of SpineCor brace in the correction of postural deformities in the course of idiopathic scoliosis. Pol Orthop Traumatol. 2013;(78):85–89.
  27. Rożek K, Potaczek T, Zarzycka M, et al. Effectiveness of treatment of idiopathic scoliosis by SpineCor dynamic bracing with special physiotherapy programme in SpineCor System. Ortop Traumatol Rehabil. 2016;18(5):425–434. doi: 10.5604/15093492.1224616
  28. Marik I, Cerny P, Sobotka Z, et al. Comparation of effectivity of chêneau – Brace and dynamic dorrective Spinal Brace according to Cerny. Pohybove Ustroji. 1997;3(4):56–61.
  29. Culik J, Маrik I, Cerny P. Treatment of children scoliosis by corrective brace with regulated force effect. J Musculoskelet Neuronal Interact. 2011;11(2):203–207.
  30. Skoblin AA, Alekseenko IG. New corsets for the treatment of patients with idiopathic scoliosis of II-III Degree. Priorov Journal of Traumatology and Orthopedics. 2003;10(4):60–63. (In Russ.). doi: 10.17816/vto200310460-63
  31. Spivak BG. Modern orthotics techniques for patients with spine pathology and indications for use. Medical and Social Problems of Disability. 2019;(1):29–42. (In Russ.).
  32. Spivak BG, Pozharishchenskiy KE, Papichev SV. Clinical aspects of congenital and acquired spine pathology in patients of the different age groups and medical indications for the prescription of modern orthosis facilities. Medical and Social Problems of Disability. 2018;(4):69–80. (In Russ.)
  33. Mikhailovsky MV, Shuts SA, Tregubova IL, et al. “Uzor” exocorrector for spinal deformity. Hirurgiâ pozvonočnika (Spine Surgery). 2007;(2):31–39. (In Russ.). doi: 10.14531/ss2007.2.31-39
  34. Lein GA, Gusev MG, Pavlov IV, et al. Osnovy` aktivno-korrigiruyushhego ortezirovaniya v lechenii travm i zabolevanij pozvonochnika: metod. posobie. Saint Petersburg: SPbNCzE`PR im. G.A. Al`brexta, 2012. (In Russ.)
  35. Vissarionov SV, Pavlov IV, Gusev MG, et al. Complex treatment of patient with multiple fractures of vertebrae in the thoracic spine. Traumatology and Orthopedics of Russia. 2012;(2):91–95. (In Russ.). doi: 10.21823/2311-2905-2012--2-91-95
  36. Nikolaev VF, Baranovskaya IA, Andrievskaya AO. Results of using a functional corrective Cheneau type brace in complex rehabilitation of children and teenagers with idiopathic scoliosis. Genii Ortopedii. 2019;25(3):368–377. (In Russ.). DOI: 10/18019/1028-4427-2019-25-3-368-377
  37. Tanaka T. A study of the progression of congenital scoliosis in non-operated cases. Nihon Seikeigeka Gakkai Zasshi J. 1988;62(1):9–22.
  38. Weiss HR. Congenital scoliosis — presentation of three severe cases treated conservatively. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2008;(140):310–313.
  39. Demirkiran HG, Bekmez S, Celilov R, et al. Serial derotational casting in congenital scoliosis as a time-buying strategy. J Pediatr Orthop. 2015;35(1):43–49. doi: 10.1097/BPO.0000000000000229
  40. Cao J, Zhang XJ, Sun N, et al. The therapeutic characteristics of serial casting on congenital scoliosis: a comparison with non-congenital cases from a single-center experience. J Orthop Surg Res. 2017;12(1):56-62. doi: 10.1186/s13018-017-0554-7
  41. Wang Y, Feng Z, Wu Z, et al. Brace treatment can serve as a time-buying tactic for patients with congenital scoliosis. J Orthop Surg Res. 2019;14(1):194–200. DOI: 10/1186/s13018-019-1244-4
  42. Stücker R. Kongenitale Wirbelsäulendeformitäten im Wachstumsalter. Der Orthopäde. 2019;(48):486–493. doi: 10.1007/s00132-019-03744-3
  43. Voitenkov VB, Min’kin AV, Ekusheva EV, et al. Condition of the muscles of the back under lumbo-sacral orthotic treatment (literature review). Genij Ortopedii. 2018;24(1):102–107. (In Russ.). doi: 10.18019/1028-4427-2018-24-1-102-107
  44. Volkovich LG, Kibasova MV, Kosyanchuk TV. Experience of physical rehabilitation of children after surgical treatment of scoliosis. Pacific Medical Journal. 2016;61(4):81–83. (In Russ.). doi: 10.17238/PmJ1609-1175.2016.4.81-83
  45. Andras L, Badkoobehi H, Broom A, et al. Does the low of diminishing returns apply to guided growth Shilla construct? Spine deformity. 2014;2(6):512–513. doi: 10.1016/j.jspd.2014.09.037.
  46. Gajduk YuV. Kliniko-nevrologicheskie narusheniya i ih korrekciya u detej s vrozhdennymi porokami razvitiya pozvonochnika i displasticheskimi skoliozami. Uchenye zapiski SPbGMU im. akad. I.P. Pavlova. 2009;16(2):61–63. (In Russ.)
  47. Heary RF, Bono CM, Kumar S. Bracing for Scoliosis. Neurosurgery. 2008;63(3):125–130.
  48. Hedden D. Management themes in congenital scoliosis. J Bone and Joint Surg. 2007;89(1):72–78.
  49. Weiss HR, Moramarco M. Congenital scoliosis (Mini-review). Curr Pediatr Rev. 2016;12(1):43–47. DOI: 10/2174/1573396312666151117121011
  50. King JD, Lowery GL. Results of lumbar hemivertebral excision for congenital scoliosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1991;16(7):778–782.
  51. Shen FH, Lubicky JP. Surgical excision of the hemivertebra in congenital scoliosis. J Am Coll Surg. 2004;199:652–653. doi: 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2004.02.034
  52. Shen FН, Arlet V. Congenital scoliosis. In Spinal Disorders. Fundamental of diagnosis and treatment. Ed. by N. Boos, M. Aebi. Berlin: Springer; 2008. P. 693–700.
  53. Yazici M, Yilmaz G, Kawakami N. Congenital scoliosis. In the growing spine. Spinal disorders in young children. Ed. by B.A. Akarnia, M. Yazia, G.H. Thompson. Berlin: Springer; 2016. P. 167–190.
  54. Pahys JM, Guille JT. What’s New in Congenital Scoliosis? Pediatr Orthop. 2018;38(3):172–179. DOI: 10/1097/BPO.0000000000000922
  55. Kaspiris A, Grivas TB, Weiss HR, et al. Surgical and conservative treatment of patients with congenital scoliosis: а search for long-term results. Scoliosis. 2011;6(1):12. doi: 10.1186/1748-7161-6-12
  56. Yang X, Song Y, Liu L, et al. Emerging S-shaped curves in congenital scoliosis after hemivertebra resection and short segmental fusion. Spine J. 2016;16(10):1214–1220. doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2016.06.006
  57. Fekete TF, Haschtmann D, Heyde CE, et al. Congenital malformations of the growing spine: When should treatment be conservative and when should it be surgical. Orthopade. 2016;45(6):518–526. doi: 10.1007/s00132-016-3275-4
  58. Murashko VV, Kokushin DN, Vissarionov SV, et al. The use of orthotics in a patient with congenital backbone deformation after surgical treatment. Pediatric Traumatology, Orthopaedics and Reconstructive Surgery. 2018;6(4):103–109. (In Russ.). doi: 10.17816/PTORS64103-109

Supplementary files

There are no supplementary files to display.


Copyright (c) 2021 Redchenko I.А., Vissarionov S.V., Gusev M.G., Lein G.A., Pavlov I.V.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

This website uses cookies

You consent to our cookies if you continue to use our website.

About Cookies