Outcome observations in patients using a scoliosis activity suit: A retrospective chart review after one-year follow-up

Bracing for juvenile and adolescent idiopathic scoliosis has a long history of use. Effectiveness of conventional rigid bracing is highly variable, likely depending upon the skill of the practitioner, the type of brace selected, and the type of scoliosis being treated. In review of various bracing studies, Dolan and Weinstein found that bracing does not result in superior clinical outcomes compared to observation only. Another review by Negrini et al found that bracing studies were generally of low methodological quality, and therefore their effectiveness remains in question. Various studies have sought to compare the effectiveness of different types of scoliosis bracing. Janicki et al compared the TLSO to the Providence brace and found the Providence brace to provide superior correction for curves below 35°. However, the effectiveness of both braces was called into question by the authors. Another study by Howard et al found the TLSO to be superior to the Charleston and Milwaukee braces. Katz et al concluded that the Boston TLSO should be recommended over the Charleston brace as well. European bracing has been given more exposure in recent years, however, comparisons between these braces are lacking. A dynamic brace, the SpineCor brace, has been repeatedly tested in the literature. Its results have ranged from providing correction, stabilization, to providing no benefit compared to natural history. The SpineCor has been compared to the SPoRT brace as well as the Cheneau brace. Both studies provided evidence that the SpineCor brace did not achieve the same benefit as its rigid counterparts. Regardless of which style of brace is used, they all work by the same generalized principles. Bracing is intended to force the spine into a corrected position, and acts as a barrier to keep the spine in that corrected position as long as the brace is CASE SERIES