Aims. The Bracing Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis (BASIS) study is a randomized controlled non-inferiority pragmatic trial of ‘full-time bracing’ (FTB) compared to ‘night-time bracing’ (NTB) for the treatment of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS). We anticipated that recruiting patients to BASIS would be challenging, as it is a paediatric trial comparing two markedly different bracing pathways. No previous studies have compared the experiences of AIS patients treated with FTB to those treated with NTB. This qualitative study was embedded in BASIS to explore families’ perspectives of BASIS, to inform trial communication, and to identify strategies to support patients treated in a brace. Methods. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with parents (n = 26) and young people (n = 21) who had been invited to participate in BASIS at ten of the 22 UK paediatric spine services in hospitals recruiting to BASIS. Audio-recorded interviews were transcribed and analyzed thematically. Results. Families viewed their interactions with BASIS recruiters positively, but were often confused about core aspects of BASIS, such as the aims, expectations of bracing, and the process of randomization. Participants typically expressed a preference for NTB, but recruiters may have framed NTB more favourably. Patients and parents reported challenges wearing a brace, such as physical discomfort, feelings of self-consciousness, difficulty participating in physical activities, and strain on financial resources to support brace use. Patients in FTB reported more pronounced challenges. While families valued health professional support, they felt there was a lack of social, emotional, and school support, and relied on online resources, as well private counselling services to address this need. Conclusion. The findings informed the development of resources and strategies, including guidance for schools and the recommendations in this paper, to support patients to wear NTB and FTB as prescribed. The results indicated opportunities for recruiters to enhance trial communication in ways that could improve informed consent and recruitment to BASIS, and inform future trials of bracing. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2025;6(2):135–146

Aims. Scoliosis is a lateral curvature of the spine with associated rotation, often causing distress due to appearance. For some curves, there is good evidence to support the use of a spinal brace, worn for 20 to 24 hours a day to minimize the curve, making it as straight as possible during growth, preventing progression. Compliance can be poor due to appearance and comfort. A night-time brace, worn for eight to 12 hours, can achieve higher levels of curve correction while patients are supine, and could be preferable for patients, but evidence of efficacy is limited. This is the protocol for a randomized controlled trial of ‘full-time bracing’ versus ‘night-time bracing’ in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS). Methods. UK paediatric spine clinics will recruit 780 participants aged ten to 15 years-old with AIS, Risser stage 0, 1, or 2, and curve size (Cobb angle) 20° to 40° with apex at or below T7. Patients are randomly allocated 1:1, to either full-time or night-time bracing. A qualitative sub-study will explore communication and experiences of families in terms of bracing and research. Patient and Public Involvement & Engagement informed study design and will assist with aspects of trial delivery and dissemination. Discussion. The primary outcome is ‘treatment failure’ (Cobb angle progression to 50° or more before skeletal maturity); skeletal maturity is at Risser stage 4 in females and 5 in males, or ‘treatment success’ (Cobb angle less than 50° at skeletal maturity). The comparison is on a non-inferiority basis (non-inferiority margin 11%). Participants are followed up every six months while in brace, and at one and two years after skeletal maturity. Secondary outcomes include the Scoliosis Research Society 22 questionnaire and measures of quality of life, psychological effects of bracing, adherence, anxiety and depression, sleep, satisfaction, and educational attainment. All data will be collected through the British Spine Registry. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2023;4(11):873–880

This review provides a concise outline of the advances made in the care of patients and to the quality of life after a traumatic spinal cord injury (SCI) over the last century. Despite these improvements reversal of the neurological injury is not yet possible. Instead, current treatment is limited to providing symptomatic relief, avoiding secondary insults and preventing additional sequelae. However, with an ever-advancing technology and deeper understanding of the damaged spinal cord, this appears increasingly conceivable. A brief synopsis of the most prominent challenges facing both clinicians and research scientists in developing functional treatments for a progressively complex injury are presented. Moreover, the multiple mechanisms by which damage propagates many months after the original injury requires a multifaceted approach to ameliorate the human spinal cord. We discuss potential methods to protect the spinal cord from damage, and to manipulate the inherent inhibition of the spinal cord to regeneration and repair. Although acute and chronic SCI share common final pathways resulting in cell death and neurological deficits, the underlying putative mechanisms of chronic SCI and the treatments are not covered in this review.

Abstract

MAGnetic Expansion Control (MAGEC) rods are used in the surgical treatment of children with early onset scoliosis. The magnetically controlled lengthening mechanism enables rod distractions without the need for repeated invasive surgery. The CE certification of these devices was suspended in March 2021 due, primarily, to performance evidence gaps in the documents provided by the manufacturer to regulators and notified bodies. MAGEC rods are therefore not permitted for use in countries requiring CE marking. This was a survey of 18 MAGEC rod surgeons in the UK about their perception of the impact of the CE suspension on the clinical management of their patients. Unsurprisingly, virtually all perceived a negative impact, reflecting the complexity of this patient group. Reassuringly, these surgeons are highly experienced in alternative treatment methods.

Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(2):155–157.

Aims

Psychoeducative prehabilitation to optimize surgical outcomes is relatively novel in spinal fusion surgery and, like most rehabilitation treatments, they are rarely well specified. Spinal fusion patients experience anxieties perioperatively about pain and immobility, which might prolong hospital length of stay (LOS). The aim of this prospective cohort study was to determine if a Preoperative Spinal Education (POSE) programme, specified using the Rehabilitation Treatment Specification System (RTSS) and designed to normalize expectations and reduce anxieties, was safe and reduced LOS.

Aims

With resumption of elective spine surgery services in the UK following the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, we conducted a multicentre British Association of Spine Surgeons (BASS) collaborative study to examine the complications and deaths due to COVID-19 at the recovery phase of the pandemic. The aim was to analyze the safety of elective spinal surgery during the pandemic.