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
Bibliographic record
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.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".