Brace treatment in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: risk factors for failure—a literature review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Brace treatment is the most common nonoperative treatment for the prevention of curve progression in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. The success reported in level 1 and 2 clinical trials is approximately 75%. The aim of this review was to identify the main risk factors that significantly reduce success rate of brace treatment. A literature search using the MEDLINE and Embase databases was conducted. Studies were included if they identified specific risk factor(s) for curve progression. Studies that looked at nighttime braces, superiority of one type of brace over another, the effect of physical therapy on brace performance, cadaver or nonhuman studies were excluded. A total of 1,022 articles were identified of which 25 met all of the inclusion criteria. Seven risk factors were identified: Poor brace compliance (eight studies), lack of skeletal maturity (six studies), Cobb angle over a certain threshold (six studies), poor in-brace correction (three studies), vertebral rotation (four studies), osteopenia (two studies), and thoracic curve type (two studies). Three risk factors were highly repeated in the literature which identified specific subgroups of patients who have a much higher risk to fail brace treatment and to progress to fusion. This data demonstrates that 60% to 70% of the patients referred to bracing are Risser 0 and 30% to 70% of this group will not wear the brace enough to ensure treatment efficacy. Furthermore, Risser 0 patients who reach the accelerated growth phase with a curve ≥40° are at 70% to 100% risk of curve progression to the fusion surgical threshold despite proper brace wear. Skeletally immature patients with relatively large magnitude scoliosis who are noncompliant are at a higher risk of failing brace treatment.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".