Search

Purpose: Corrective three dimensional (3D) effect of different braces is debatable. We evaluated differences in in-brace radiographic correction comparing a custom thoracic-lumbo-sacral-orthosis (TLSO) (T) brace to a Chêneau type TLSO (C) brace using 3D EOS reconstruction technology. Our primary research question was the 3D effect of brace on the spine and in particularly the apical vertebra rotation (AVR)., Methods: This was a retrospective comparative analysis of patients with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis who had orthogonal AP and lateral X-rays with and without brace. A 3D image of the spine was reconstructed. Coronal, sagittal and axial spine parameters were measured before bracing and then on the first post-brace X-ray. Brace efficacy in controlling coronal, sagittal and axial parameters was evaluated., Results: Eighteen patients treated with the C brace and ten patients treated with the T brace were included. No difference was found regarding patients' age, gender, magnitude of Cobb angle, sagittal parameters or AVR at inclusion. Following bracing, AVR was significantly reduced by the C brace compared to the T brace [average correction of 8.2° vs. 4.9° (P = 0.02)]. Coronal and sagittal correction did not differ significantly between the two groups., Conclusions: By utilizing a novel 3D reconstruction technology, we were able to demonstrate that braces differ in their immediate effects on the spine. Although clinical relevance should be evaluated in a future trial we feel that the ability to measure treatment effects in 3D, and especially the transverse plane, is an important tool when evaluating different treatments.

The aim of this study was to evaluate the precision of three-dimensional geometry compared with computed tomography (CT) images. This retrospective study included patients who had undergone both imaging of the spine using the EOS imaging system and CT scanning of the spine. The apical vertebral orientation was also measured using the EOS imaging system and by CT. Other measures such as the Cobb angle and apical vertebral rotation and translation were used as the control variables to evaluate the potential discrepancy between the standing position in EOS imaging and the supine position in CT scanning. The apical vertebral orientations were 8.7° for the first measurement and 8.4° for the second measurement made by the first author, and 10.3° for the measurement made by the second author. The average of these measurements was 9.3° compared with 6.6° (P=0.65) obtained on CT scanning. The precision of EOS-based measurements of vertebral rotation has never been tested in clinical practice. Although it has limitations, this study suggests that the results obtained using EOS are comparable to those obtained on CT.