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. 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.Aims
Methods
The aim of this study was to systematically compare the safety and accuracy of robot-assisted (RA) technique with conventional freehand with/without fluoroscopy-assisted (CT) pedicle screw insertion for spine disease. A systematic search was performed on PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), and WANFANG for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that investigated the safety and accuracy of RA compared with conventional freehand with/without fluoroscopy-assisted pedicle screw insertion for spine disease from 2012 to 2019. This meta-analysis used Mantel-Haenszel or inverse variance method with mixed-effects model for heterogeneity, calculating the odds ratio (OR), mean difference (MD), standardized mean difference (SMD), and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The results of heterogeneity, subgroup analysis, and risk of bias were analyzed.Aims
Methods
In a multicentre, randomised study of adolescents undergoing
posterior spinal fusion for idiopathic scoliosis, we investigated
the effect of adding gelatine matrix with human thrombin to the
standard surgical methods of controlling blood loss. Patients in the intervention group (n = 30) were randomised to
receive a minimum of two and a maximum of four units of gelatine
matrix with thrombin in addition to conventional surgical methods
of achieving haemostasis. Only conventional surgical methods were
used in the control group (n = 30). We measured the intra-operative
and total blood loss (intra-operative blood loss plus post-operative
drain output).Aims
Patients and Methods
