3D Radiological Outcomes and Quality of Life of Patients With Moderate Idiopathic Scoliosis Treated With Anterior Vertebral Growth Modulation Versus Bracing: Two-Year Follow-up. Issue 15 (1st August 2022)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Duarte, Matias Pereira; Aubin, Carl-Eric; Cobetto, Nikita; Roy-Beaudry, Marjolaine; Bellefleur, Christian; Turgeon, Isabelle; Labelle, Hubert; Guy, Aymeric; Barchi, Soraya; Parent, Stefan
• Is Part Of: Spine. Volume 47:Issue 15(2022)
• Page Start: 1063
• Page End: 1070
• Publication Date: 2022-08-01
• Subjects: 3D parameters -- anterior vertebral body growth modulation -- brace -- Cobb angle -- growth modulation -- idiopathic scoliosis -- pediatrics -- quality of life -- spine -- tethering; Spine -- Abnormalities -- Periodicals; Spine -- Diseases -- Periodicals; Spine -- Surgery -- Periodicals; 616.73005
• DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000004335
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0362-2436

Abstract

Abstract : Study Design: Observational cohort study. Objective: To test the hypothesis that anterior vertebral body growth modulation (AVBGM) achieves 3D deformity correction after 2-year follow-up while brace treatment limits curve progression for moderate idiopathic scoliosis (30–50°). Summary of Background Data: For idiopathic scoliosis, bracing and AVBGM have overlapping indications in skeletally immature patients with moderate scoliosis curve angles, creating a grey zone in clinical practice between them. The relative 3D deformity control performance over a 2-year period between these fusionless treatments is still uncertain. Methods: A retrospective review of a prospective idiopathic scoliosis patients database, recruited between 2013 and 2018 was performed. Inclusion criteria were skeletally immature patients (Risser 0–2), with Cobb angles between 30° and 50° and a 2-year follow-up after bracing or AVBGM. 3D radiological parameters and health related quality of life (HRQoL) scores were evaluated. Unpaired t test was used. Results: Thirty nine patients (12.7 ± 1.3 y.o.) with Cobb angles more than or equal to 30° treated with brace and 41 patients (11.8 ± 1.2 y.o.) with presenting Cobb angles less than or equal to 50° who received AVBGM were reviewed. The statistical analysis of 3D deformity measurements showed that at 2-year follow-up, only the 3D spine length and both sides apical vertebral heights changed significantly with brace treatment. While AVBGM treatment achieved statistically significant correction differences in thoracic and lumbar Cobb angles, TrueKyphosis, 3D spine length, and selective left apical vertebral height ( P < 0.05). 35% of brace patients had a curve progression of more than 5° at final follow-up while it was 0% for AVBGM. HRQoL assessment showed no statistically significant differences between pre and post SRS-22 total scores for each group ( P > 0.05). Conclusion: Even though these two cohorts are not fully comparable, bracing seems to control progression for a significant portion of patients with moderate scoliosis curves, while AVBGM significantly corrected and maintained 3D deformity parameters at 2-year follow-up.