Nighttime Bracing or Exercise in Moderate-Grade Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Moderate-grade adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) may be treated with full-time bracing. For patients who reject full-time bracing, the effects of alternative, conservative interventions are unknown. Objective: To determine whether self-mediated physical activity combined with either nighttime bracing (NB) or scoliosis-specific exercise (SSE) is superior to a control of physical activity alone (PA) in preventing Cobb angle progression in moderate-grade AIS. Design, Setting, and Participants: The Conservative Treatment for Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis (CONTRAIS) randomized clinical trial was conducted from January 10, 2013, through October 23, 2018, in 6 public hospitals across Sweden. Male and female children and adolescents aged 9 to 17 years with an AIS primary curve Cobb angle of 25° to 40°, apex T7 or caudal, and skeletal immaturity based on estimated remaining growth of at least 1 year were included in the study. Dates of analysis were from October 25, 2021, to January 28, 2023. Interventions: Interventions included self-mediated physical activity in combination with either NB or SSE or PA (control). Patients with treatment failure were given the option to transition to a full-time brace until skeletal maturity. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was curve progression of 6° or less (treatment success) or curve progression of more than 6° (treatment failure) seen on 2 consecutive posteroanterior standing radiographs compared with the inclusion radiograph before skeletal maturity. A secondary outcome of curve progression was the number of patients undergoing surgery up until 2 years after the primary outcome. Results: The CONTRAIS study included 135 patients (45 in each of the 3 groups) with a mean (SD) age of 12.7 (1.4) years; 111 (82%) were female. Treatment success was seen in 34 of 45 patients (76%) in the NB group and in 24 of 45 patients (53%) in the PA group (odds ratio [OR], 2.7; 95% CI, 1.1-6.6). The number needed to treat to prevent curve progression with NB was 4.5 (95% CI, 2.4-33.5). Treatment success occurred in 26 of 45 patients (58%) in the SSE group (OR for SE vs PA, 1.2; 95% CI, 0.5-2.8). Up to 2 years after the primary outcome time point, 9 patients in each of the 3 groups underwent surgery. Conclusions and Relevance: In this randomized clinical trial, treatment with NB prevented curve progression of more than 6° to a significantly higher extent than did PA, while SSE did not; in addition, allowing transition to full-time bracing after treatment failure resulted in similar surgical frequencies independent of initial treatment. These results suggest that NB may be an effective alternative intervention in patients rejecting full-time bracing. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01761305.

A Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion and Uninstrumented Posterolateral Fusion in the Degenerative Lumbar Spine.

Study Design Randomized controlled trial. Objective Despite a large number of publications of outcomes after spinal fusion surgery, there is still no consensus on the efficacy of the several different fusion methods. The aim of this study was to determine whether transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) results in an improved clinical outcome compared with uninstrumented posterolateral fusion (PLF) in the surgical treatment for chronic low back pain. Methods This study included 135 patients with degenerative disk disease (n = 96) or postdiskectomy syndrome (n = 39). Inclusion criteria were at least 1 year of back pain with or without leg pain in patients aged 20 to 65 with one- or two-level disease. Exclusion criteria were sequestration of disk hernia, psychosocial instability, isthmic spondylolisthesis, drug abuse, and previous spine surgery other than diskectomy. Pain was assessed by visual analog scale (pain index). Functional disability was quantified by the disability rating index and Oswestry Disability Index. The global outcome was assessed by the patient and classified as much better, better, unchanged, or worse. The patients were randomized to conventional uninstrumented PLF (n = 67) or TLIF (n = 68). PLF was performed in a standardized fashion using autograft. TLIF was performed with pedicle titanium screw fixation and a porous tantalum interbody spacer with interbody and posterolateral autograft. The clinical outcome measurements were obtained preoperatively and at 12 and 24 months postoperatively. The 2-year follow-up rate was 98%. Results The two treatment groups improved significantly from preoperatively to 2 years' follow-up. At final follow-up, the results in the TLIF group were significantly superior to those in the PLF group in pain index (2.0 versus 3.9, p = 0.007) and in disability rating index (22 versus 36, p = 0.003). The Oswestry Disability Index was better in the TLIF group (20 versus 28, p = 0.110, not significant). The global assessment was clearly superior in the TLIF group: 63% of patients scored "much better" in the TLIF group as compared with 48% in the PLF group (p = 0.017). Conclusions The results of the current study support the use of TLIF rather than uninstrumented PLF in the surgical treatment of the degenerative lumbar spine. The less optimal outcome after uninstrumented PLF may be explained by the much higher reoperation rate.