Therapeutic exercises for idiopathic scoliosis in adolescents.

BACKGROUND: Adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) is a pathology that changes the three-dimensional shape of the spine and trunk. While AIS can progress during growth and cause cosmetic issues, it is usually asymptomatic. However, a final spinal curvature above the critical threshold of 30° increases the risk of health problems and curve progression in adulthood. The use of therapeutic exercises (TEs) to reduce the progression of AIS and delay or avoid other, more invasive treatments is still controversial. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of TE, including generic therapeutic exercises (GTE) and physiotherapeutic scoliosis-specific exercises (PSSE) in treating AIS, compared to no treatment, other non-surgical treatments, or between treatments. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, four other databases, and two clinical trials registers to 17 November 2022. We also screened reference lists of articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing TE with no treatment, other non-surgical treatments (braces, electrical stimulation, manual therapy), and different types of exercises. In the previous version of the review, we also included observational studies. We did not include observational studies in this update since we found sufficient RCTs to address our study aims. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methodology. Our major outcomes were progression of scoliosis (measured by Cobb angle, trunk rotation, progression, bracing, surgery), cosmetic issues (measured by surface measurements and perception), and quality of life (QoL). Our minor outcomes were back pain, mental health, and adverse effects. MAIN RESULTS: We included 13 RCTs (583 participants). The percentage of females ranged from 50% to 100%; mean age ranged from 12 to 15 years. Studies included participants with Cobb angles from low to severe. We judged 61% of the studies at low risk for random sequence generation and 46% at low risk for allocation concealment. None of the studies could blind participants and personnel. We judged the subjective outcomes at high risk of performance and detection bias, and the objective outcomes at high risk of detection bias in six studies and at low risk of bias in the other six studies. One study did not assess any objective outcomes. Comparing TE versus no treatment, we are very uncertain whether TE reduces the Cobb angle (mean difference (MD) -3.6°, 95% confidence interval (CI) -5.6 to -1.7; 2 studies, 52 participants). Low-certainty evidence indicates PSSE makes little or no difference in the angle of trunk rotation (ATR) (MD -0.8°, 95% CI -3.8 to 2.1; 1 study, 45 participants), may reduce the waist asymmetry slightly (MD -0.5 cm, 95% CI -0.8 to -0.3; 1 study, 45 participants), and may result in little to no difference in the score of cosmetic issues measured by the Spinal Appearance Questionnaire (SAQ) General (MD 0.7 points, 95% CI -0.1 to 1.4; 1 study, 16 participants). PSSE may result in little to no difference in self-image measured by the Scoliosis Research Society - 22 Patient Questionnaire (SRS-22) (MD 0.3 points, 95% CI -0.3 to 0.9; 1 study, 16 participants) and improve QoL slightly measured by SRS-22 Total score (MD 0.3 points, 95% CI 0.1 to 0.4; 2 studies, 61 participants). Only Cobb angle results were clinically meaningful. Comparing PSSE plus bracing versus bracing, low-certainty evidence indicates PSSE plus bracing may reduce Cobb angle (-2.2°, 95% CI -3.8 to -0.7; 2 studies, 84 participants). Comparing GTE plus other non-surgical interventions versus other non-surgical interventions, low-certainty evidence indicates GTE plus other non-surgical interventions may reduce Cobb angle (MD -8.0°, 95% CI -11.5 to -4.5; 1 study, 80 participants). We are uncertain whether PSSE plus other non-surgical interventions versus other non-surgical interventions reduces Cobb angle (MD -7.8°, 95% CI -12.5 to -3.1; 1 study, 18 participants) and ATR (MD -8.0°, 95% CI -12.7 to -3.3; 1 study, 18 participants). PSSE plus bracing versus bracing alone may make little to no difference in subjective measurement of cosmetic issues as measured by SAQ General (-0.2 points, 95% CI -0.9 to 0.5; 1 study, 34 participants), self-image score as measured by SRS-22 Self-Image (MD 0.1 points, 95% CI -0.3 to 0.5; 1 study, 34 participants), and QoL measured by SRS-22 Total score (MD 0.2 points, 95% CI -0.1 to 0.5; 1 study, 34 participants). None of these results were clinically meaningful. Comparing TE versus bracing, we are very uncertain whether PSSE allows progression of Cobb angle (MD 2.7°, 95% CI 0.3 to 5.0; 1 study, 60 participants), changes self-image measured by SRS-22 Self-Image (MD 0.1 points, 95% CI -1.0 to 1.1; 1 study, 60 participants), and QoL measured by SRS-22 Total score (MD 3.2 points, 95% CI 2.1 to 4.2; 1 study, 60 participants). None of these results were clinically meaningful. Comparing PSSE with GTE, we are uncertain whether PSSE makes little or no difference in Cobb angle (MD -3.0°, 95% CI -8.2 to 2.1; 4 studies, 192 participants; very low-certainty evidence). PSSE probably reduces ATR (clinically meaningful) (MD -3.0°, 95% CI -3.4 to -2.5; 2 studies, 138 participants). We are uncertain about the effect of PSSE on QoL measured by SRS-22 Total score (MD 0.26 points, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.62; 3 studies, 168 participants) and on self-image measured by SRS-22 Self-Image and Walter Reed Visual Assessment Scale (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.77, 95% CI -0.61 to 2.14; 3 studies, 168 participants). Further, low-certainty evidence indicates that 38/100 people receiving GTE may progress more than 5° Cobb versus 7/100 receiving PSSE (risk ratio (RR) 0.19, 95% CI -0.67 to 0.52; 1 study, 110 participants). None of the included studies assessed adverse effects. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The evidence on the efficacy of TE is currently sparse due to heterogeneity, small sample size, and many different comparisons. We found only one study following participants to the end of growth showing the efficacy of PSSE over TE. This result was weakened by adding studies with short-term results and unclear preparation of treating physiotherapists. More RCTs are needed to strengthen the current evidence and study other highly clinically relevant outcomes such as QoL, psychological and cosmetic issues, and back pain.

Exercises for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis.

BACKGROUND: Adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) is a three-dimensional deformity of the spine . While AIS can progress during growth and cause a surface deformity, it is usually not symptomatic. However, in adulthood, if the final spinal curvature surpasses a certain critical threshold, the risk of health problems and curve progression is increased. The use of scoliosis-specific exercises (SSE) to reduce progression of AIS and postpone or avoid other more invasive treatments is controversial. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy of SSE in adolescent patients with AIS. SEARCH METHODS: The following databases (up to 30 March 2011) were searched with no language limitations: CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2011, issue 2), MEDLINE (from January 1966), EMBASE (from January 1980), CINHAL (from January 1982), SportDiscus (from January 1975), PsycInfo (from January 1887), PEDro (from January 1929). We screened reference lists of articles and also conducted an extensive handsearch of grey literature. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials and prospective cohort studies with a control group comparing exercises with no treatment, other treatment, surgery, and different types of exercises. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected studies, assessed risk of bias and extracted data. MAIN RESULTS: Two studies (154 participants) were included. There is low quality evidence from one randomised controlled study that exercises as an adjunctive to other conservative treatments increase the efficacy of these treatments (thoracic curve reduced: mean difference (MD) 9.00, (95% confidence interval (CI) 5.47 to 12.53); lumbar curve reduced:MD 8.00, (95% CI 5.08 to 10.92)). There is very low quality evidence from a prospective controlled cohort study that scoliosis-specific exercises structured within an exercise programme can reduce brace prescription (risk ratio (RR) 0.24, (95% CI 0.06 to1.04) as compared to usual physiotherapy (many different kinds of general exercises according to the preferences of the single therapists within different facilities). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is a lack of high quality evidence to recommend the use of SSE for AIS. One very low quality study suggested that these exercises may be more effective than electrostimulation, traction and postural training to avoid scoliosis progression, but better quality research needs to be conducted before the use of SSE can be recommended in clinical practice.

Specific exercises in the treatment of scoliosis--differential indication.

Different methods of physiotherapy are applied in scoliosis management and different opinions exist about the efficacy of conservative scoliosis treatment. Because this divergence of opinions corresponds to a great variety of standards applied, it is not surprising that also the results of conservative treatment greatly differ. Scoliosis normally does not have such dramatic effects that immediate surgery would be indicated. Moreover it is clear that functional and physiological impairments of scoliosis patients-including pain, torso deformity, psychological disturbance and pulmonary dysfunction-require therapeutic intervention. The triad of out-patient physiotherapy, intensive in-patient rehabilitation (SIR) and bracing has proven effective in conservative scoliosis treatment in central Europe. Indication, content and results of physiotherapy are described and discussed in this paper. The differential indication of methods of physiotherapy assigned to current "Best Practice" is documented here as well. The positive outcome of current "Best Practice" conservative management validates a policy of offering conservative treatment as an alternative to scoliosis patients, including those for whom surgery is discussed.

Physiotherapy scoliosis-specific exercises - a comprehensive review of seven major schools.

In recent decades, there has been a call for change among all stakeholders involved in scoliosis management. Parents of children with scoliosis have complained about the so-called "wait and see" approach that far too many doctors use when evaluating children's scoliosis curves between 10° and 25°. Observation, Physiotherapy Scoliosis Specific Exercises (PSSE) and bracing for idiopathic scoliosis during growth are all therapeutic interventions accepted by the 2011 International Society on Scoliosis Orthopaedic and Rehabilitation Treatment (SOSORT). The standard features of these interventions are: 1) 3-dimension self-correction; 2) Training activities of daily living (ADL); and 3) Stabilization of the corrected posture. PSSE is part of a scoliosis care model that includes scoliosis specific education, scoliosis specific physical therapy exercises, observation or surveillance, psychological support and intervention, bracing and surgery. The model is oriented to the patient. Diagnosis and patient evaluation is essential in this model looking at a patient-oriented decision according to clinical experience, scientific evidence and patient's preference. Thus, specific exercises are not considered as an alternative to bracing or surgery but as a therapeutic intervention, which can be used alone or in combination with bracing or surgery according to individual indication. In the PSSE model it is recommended that the physical therapist work as part of a multidisciplinary team including the orthopeadic doctor, the orthotist, and the mental health care provider - all are according to the SOSORT guidelines and Scoliosis Research Society (SRS) philosophy. From clinical experiences, PSSE can temporarily stabilize progressive scoliosis curves during the secondary period of progression, more than a year after passing the peak of growth. In non-progressive scoliosis, the regular practice of PSSE could produce a temporary and significant reduction of the Cobb angle. PSSE can also produce benefits in subjects with scoliosis other than reducing the Cobb angle, like improving back asymmetry, based on 3D self-correction and stabilization of a stable 3D corrected posture, as well as the secondary muscle imbalance and related pain. In more severe cases of thoracic scoliosis, it can also improve breathing function. This paper will discuss in detail seven major scoliosis schools and their approaches to PSSE, including their bracing techniques and scientific evidence. The aim of this paper is to understand and learn about the different international treatment methods so that physical therapists can incorporate the best from each into their own practices, and in that way attempt to improve the conservative management of patients with idiopathic scoliosis. These schools are presented in the historical order in which they were developed. They include the Lyon approach from France, the Katharina Schroth Asklepios approach from Germany, the Scientific Exercise Approach to Scoliosis (SEAS) from Italy, the Barcelona Scoliosis Physical Therapy School approach (BSPTS) from Spain, the Dobomed approach from Poland, the Side Shift approach from the United Kingdom, and the Functional Individual Therapy of Scoliosis approach (FITS) from Poland.

Exercises for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: a Cochrane systematic review.

STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review of interventions. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy of scoliosis-specific exercise (SSE) in adolescent patients with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: AIS is a 3-dimensional deformity of the spine. Although AIS can progress during growth and cause a surface deformity, it is usually not symptomatic. However, in adulthood, if the final spinal curvature surpasses a certain critical threshold, the risk of health problems and curve progression is increased. The use of SSEs to reduce progression of AIS and postpone or avoid other more invasive treatments is controversial. SEARCH METHODS: The following databases (up to March 30, 2011) were searched with no language limitations: CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2011, issue 2), MEDLINE (from January 1966), EMBASE (from January 1980), CINHAL (from January 1982), SPORTDiscus (from January 1975), PsycINFO (from January 1887), and PEDro (from January 1929). We screened reference lists of articles and conducted an extensive hand search of gray literature. SELECTION CRITERIA: randomized controlled trials and prospective cohort studies with a control group comparing exercises with no treatment, other treatment, surgery, and different types of exercises. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected studies, assessed risk of bias and extracted data. RESULTS: Two studies (154 participants) were included. There is low-quality evidence from 1 randomized controlled study that exercises as an adjunctive to other conservative treatments to increase the efficacy of these treatments (thoracic curve reduced: mean difference 9.00, [95% confidence interval, 5.47-12.53]; lumbar curve reduced: mean difference 8.00, [95% confidence interval, 5.08-10.92]). There is very low-quality evidence from a prospective controlled cohort study that SSEs structured within an exercise program can reduce brace prescription (risk ratio, 0.24; [95% confidence interval, 0.06-1.04]) as compared with "usual physiotherapy" [many different kinds of general exercises according to the preferences of the single therapists within different facilities]). CONCLUSION: There is a lack of high-quality evidence to recommend the use of SSE for AIS. One very low-quality study suggested that these exercises may be more effective than electrostimulation, traction, and postural training to avoid scoliosis progression, but better quality research needs to be conducted before the use of SSE can be recommended in clinical practice. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2.