Available literature and quality of the evidence

BrAIST provides level II evidence on HRQoL among those patients undergoing bracing treatment compared to nonbraced controls.¹ Further available evidence to inform HRQoL predictors related to bracing therapy for AIS comes from level II studies spun off of the BrAIST trial. Schwieger et al. provided two level II prospective cohort studies based on BrAIST analyzing the HRQoL of braced patients at baseline and up to two‐year follow‐up post initiation of bracing therapy.⁵,⁶ Importantly, Schwieger et al. examined whether HRQoL and body image affected compliance to brace therapy.⁶ The largest cohort of braced AIS patients comes from Cheung et al. (level III).⁷ Cheung et al. analyzed 652 patients with scoliosis using the refined Scoliosis Research Society 22‐item (SRS‐22r) and 5‐level EQ‐5D (EQ‐5D‐5L) questionnaires. They compared patients undergoing clinical observation to a group of patients in thoracolumbar orthosis and patients who were previously braced.

Findings

In Cheung et al. HRQoL scores were initially higher when bracing was initiated; however, there was a time‐dependent deterioration associated with duration of brace treatment.⁷ The respective SRS‐22r scores were higher for the observation than bracing and previously braced groups (p <0.001). Curves greater than 40° had worse HRQoL (p <0.001). Additionally, previously braced patients had better HRQoL than currently braced patients, with 0.23 higher SRS‐22r scores (p <0.001), thus supporting a transient effect to bracing therapy in AIS.

Interestingly, the BrAIST trial found no differences in pediatric quality of life scores between the bracing control group at baseline or follow‐up (mean scores in primary analysis 82.9 and 81.9, respectively p = 0.97).¹ Schwieger et al. found no significant differences within or between study arms of observation or braced AIS patients; however, patients with Cobb angles >40° had significantly poorer body self‐image.⁵ In Schwieger et al., 167 patients undergoing brace treatment were found to have no statistically significant correlation to compliance with brace wear; however, there was a trend toward improved satisfaction with treatment when these patients were involved in their treatment decisions.⁶ Therefore, while initial reports suggested that bracing may be associated with poorer psychosocial development, poor body‐image, and reduced HRQoL, newer evidence suggested this to not be the case.

Resolution of clinical scenario

• Level II evidence supports that bracing is a safe and effective method of treating scoliosis in patients with growth remaining and curves ranging from 20 to 40° in their coronal cobb angle.
  
• While initial reports suggested that bracing in scoliosis was associated with a negative effect on self‐image and psychosocial health, newer level II reports suggest that HRQoL may not be significantly different between patients receiving brace treatment and those not receiving brace treatment.
  
• Level II evidence supports improved treatment satisfaction in patients taking on an active role in making decisions regarding their own bracing treatment.