Learning curve in 20 years of brace treatment
- Franz Landauer1
© Landauer; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2014
Published: 4 December 2014
The author has more than 20 years of experience in the treatment of scoliosis
Objectification of his own learning curve in brace treatment.
Retrospective case study.
I compared a group of 100 outpatients treated 20 years ago with a further group of 100 outpatients treated recently. The brace indication depends on the SOSORT-criteria. Cobb angle was measured before treatment, primary correction and follow up >1 years after weaning of the brace. Compliance was estimated by our own compliance score . All braces are made by one orthotist.
At the initial presentation Cobb angle changed from 31° (range 20°-56°) to 27° (range 20°-46°) in cases Risser <II. The number of pretreated patient without any orthopedic examination rise up to 8% and nearby 10% did not accept bracing. Also the number of non idiopathic scoliosis rise with the availability of MRI up to 6%.
Primary correction progressed in the group of 20°-30° (58% to 72%), 30°-40° (47% to 56%) and 40°- 50° (32% to 41%).
20 years ago I ordered 23 hours as fulltime bracing, but now 20 hours per day is the maximum, but the differentiation between good (73%) and bad compliance (27%) did not change significantly.
The final results at follow up have improved in the last 20 years from 28° to 23°, but the spread is still large. The number of progression >50° decreased from 12% to 5%.
Now scoliosis is diagnosed earlier, but the number of unskilled pretreatment and rejection of treatment increased. Our experience lowers the number of idiopathic scoliosis. We have learned to make bracing more effective in primary correction and at follow up despite of a lower wearing time per day. We could not influence compliance significantly.
Patients increasingly influence therapeutic regime. Part time bracing becomes the main option in outpatient treatment. There is still potential to improve brace-management. In outpatient treatment “compliance of the staff” seems to be a problem. An experienced orthopedic technician leads to a good standard, but it lacks on comparison and competition.
This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.