Skip to main content
Lê Hoàn Prosthetics & Orthotics

Orthoses

Case report: 39° curve down to 5.8° after about 29 months of bracing

X-rays before treatment, the first in-brace film and the final film when the day brace had been weaned, of a 15-year-old (Risser 3) with a single lumbar curve, compared with studies worldwide.

Case report: 39° curve down to 5.8° after about 29 months of bracing

This is a real case from the clinic, presented from start to finish: the film before treatment, the first in-brace film and the final film when the patient had been weaned off the day brace and wore only the night brace. Films and photos are kept as in the original, with only the patient-name line printed on the films masked; in the text the patient’s name is abbreviated.

A single case does not replace scientific evidence. The article therefore compares it with international studies to clarify what has been shown, what is only an association and what cannot be concluded.

1. Case summary

ItemDetails
PatientN.C.A (female), born 2007, aged 15 when scoliosis was found, Risser 3 (Ba Dinh, Hanoi)
CurveSingle C-shaped lumbar curve, apex L1, Cobb angle 38.65° (about 39°)
TreatmentTwo individualised braces (day and night), periodic review at each stage, with exercise
Period2 Aug 2022 to 30 Dec 2024 (about 29 months)
Result at the final film (30 Dec 2024, age 17)Out of brace: 5.8° (about 85% lower than 38.65°). In the night brace: −4.5° (past straight to the opposite side). Day brace weaned; only the night brace remains
AdherenceVery good: the brace was worn about 22 hours/day during treatment and never skipped; daily exercise consisting only of bar hanging and weight pulling (several hundred repetitions per session, load about one third of body weight)

2. A single C-shaped lumbar curve, and why bracing fits

Scoliosis may be a single (C) curve or a double (S) curve. This case has one lumbar curve with its apex at L1 and a Cobb angle of 38.65°. The range 25°–40° is where bracing has the best evidence in a child who is still growing: the BrAIST trial (NEJM 2013) of 242 children with a Cobb angle of 20°–40° recorded 72% success in the braced group versus 48% with observation alone, and the 2016 SOSORT guidelines recommend bracing for growing children with a curve above about 20° and a risk of progression.

According to the clinic, the patient was 15 and at Risser 3 at the first visit, meaning the skeleton was partly ossified with a limited amount of growth remaining. Risser 3 is within SOSORT’s indication for bracing (Risser 0–3) but outside the range of the BrAIST trial (Risser 0–2), so BrAIST’s figures do not apply directly to this patient. The higher the Risser grade, the less growth remains and the lower the risk of progression usually is compared with Risser 0.

3. Films before treatment (2 August 2022)

Two X-ray views and the back photo were taken at the same time. The left film is flipped to look as if seen from behind, the right film is seen from the front. The orange lines are the Cobb-angle measurement lines and the red boxes give each measurement. Result: 38.65°.

The back photo shows a shifted trunk and uneven waistlines, matching the lumbar curve on the film. Surface photos only illustrate; they do not replace X-rays.

How to read: three tiles of equal size. The two outer tiles are the X-ray of the same examination (left: flipped to look from behind; right: seen from the front), the middle tile is a back photo from the same time. The orange lines and measurement boxes are how the Cobb angle is measured on software, result 38.65°. The patient-name line printed on the films has been masked; other annotations are kept as on the original films. Image source: dungcuchinhhinh.vn.
How to read: three tiles of equal size. The two outer tiles are the X-ray of the same examination (left: flipped to look from behind; right: seen from the front), the middle tile is a back photo from the same time. The orange lines and measurement boxes are how the Cobb angle is measured on software, result 38.65°. The patient-name line printed on the films has been masked; other annotations are kept as on the original films. Image source: dungcuchinhhinh.vn.

4. X-rays of 18 December 2022: out of brace, day brace, night brace

On 18 December 2022 the clinic took three films on the same day: out of brace (labelled “K ÁO”), in the day brace and in the night brace. This is the first set of X-rays taken with the brace on (after the minimum interval between examinations required by professional practice). Because there is a same-day out-of-brace film, in-brace correction is calculated in the proper sense: the in-brace films are compared with the out-of-brace film of the same day, not with the film of 2 August 2022.

On each film the software records two angles (upper and lower). Following the clinic’s guidance, the lumbar curve is taken as the lower angle.

Condition (18 Dec 2022)Upper / lower angleIn-brace correction versus the same-day out-of-brace film
Out of brace (K ÁO)9.8° / 8.0°— (reference)
In the day brace7.9° / 9.8°lower angle no further correction (9.8° versus 8.0°); upper angle about 19% lower
In the night brace2.8° / 0.8°about 90% lower (upper angle: about 71%)
How to read: each tile shows the date, the condition (out of brace or in the brace) and the two angles written on the film itself (large figure underneath). The first tile is the pre-treatment film (2 August 2022, 38.65°). The next two are films of the same day, 18 December 2022: out of brace (label K ÁO, 9.8° / 8.0°) and in the day brace (label AO NGAY, 7.9° / 9.8°). The night-brace film of the same day (2.8° / 0.8°) is not shown in the picture. The patient-name line printed on the films has been masked; other annotations are kept as on the original films.
How to read: each tile shows the date, the condition (out of brace or in the brace) and the two angles written on the film itself (large figure underneath). The first tile is the pre-treatment film (2 August 2022, 38.65°). The next two are films of the same day, 18 December 2022: out of brace (label K ÁO, 9.8° / 8.0°) and in the day brace (label AO NGAY, 7.9° / 9.8°). The night-brace film of the same day (2.8° / 0.8°) is not shown in the picture. The patient-name line printed on the films has been masked; other annotations are kept as on the original films.
How to read: each horizontal bar is the lower Cobb angle of the same patient; the shorter the bar, the straighter the curve. The grey bar is the first film (38.65°). The other three bars are the three films of the same day, 18 December 2022: out of brace 8.0° (orange), day brace 9.8° and night brace 0.8°. In-brace correction is calculated against the same-day out-of-brace film: about 90% for the night brace, no further correction for the day brace.
How to read: each horizontal bar is the lower Cobb angle of the same patient; the shorter the bar, the straighter the curve. The grey bar is the first film (38.65°). The other three bars are the three films of the same day, 18 December 2022: out of brace 8.0° (orange), day brace 9.8° and night brace 0.8°. In-brace correction is calculated against the same-day out-of-brace film: about 90% for the night brace, no further correction for the day brace.

Two things must be kept apart. First, compared with the very first film (2 August 2022, 38.65°), the out-of-brace angle on 18 December 2022 was already 8.0° (about 79% lower; about 75% using the upper angle 9.8°): that is the effect of treatment on the curve after about 4.5 months, not in-brace correction. Second, in-brace correction is a same-day comparison: the night brace took the lower angle from 8.0° to 0.8° (about 90%), while the day brace gave no further correction at the lower angle (9.8° versus 8.0°).

The day-brace result must be read correctly: when the out-of-brace angle is already low (8.0°) the day brace has very little room to correct more; the percentage of correction depends on the starting curve, and the measurement error of a Cobb angle (about ±5°) is larger than the 1.8° difference between the two lower angles. The day and night braces also have different roles: the night brace is designed to correct strongly while lying down, the day brace to hold during activity.

Compared with the research: in the Boston-brace study of Emans et al. (Spine 1986; 295 patients) the best in-brace correction averaged about 50%; Brown et al. (J Pediatr Orthop 2026; 50 children, Rigo Chêneau braces) recorded 55 ± 20%. The night brace’s correction in this case (about 90%) is above those levels, and the day brace’s is below. Details in section 6.

On how the films are obtained: nobody orders two X-ray examinations days apart because of radiation exposure; the professional rule is a minimum of 3 months between films. The first film (2 August 2022) and the set of 18 December 2022 are therefore about 4.5 months apart. In the study abstracts we read (Emans, Lou, Brown, Bonsignore-Opp, Davis, D’Amato), none states the interval between films.

5. Final result: the day brace weaned (film of 30 December 2024)

More than two years later (30 December 2024, the patient aged 17) the day brace had been weaned and only the night brace remained. The final films are therefore only two: out of brace and in the night brace. Out of brace the measured angle is 5.8° (other angle: 2.4°); in the night brace −4.5° (other angle: 2.1°), meaning the curve is pushed past straight to the opposite side.

Compared with the first film: out of brace the Cobb angle fell from 38.65° to 5.8°, about 85% (32.9°). By convention an angle below 10° is not regarded as scoliosis, and the measurement error of a Cobb angle (about ±5°) is larger than the value left. That the night brace still over-corrects (−4.5°) is regarded by the clinic as a very good prognostic sign.

ConditionFirst film (2 Aug 2022)Final film (30 Dec 2024)Change
Out of brace38.65°5.8°about 85% lower (32.9°)
In the night brace— (no brace yet)−4.5° (past straight to the opposite side)—
Day brace— (no brace yet)weaned, no longer worn—
How to read: two films of the same day, 30 December 2024. Left: out of brace, angles 2.4° (upper) and 5.8° (lower). Right: in the night brace (label Ao Dem), 2.1° (upper) and 4.5° at the lower angle; according to the clinic that angle lies toward the opposite side and is therefore recorded as −4.5° (past straight). The day brace had been weaned, so there is no day-brace film. The patient-name line printed on the films has been masked; other annotations are kept.
How to read: two films of the same day, 30 December 2024. Left: out of brace, angles 2.4° (upper) and 5.8° (lower). Right: in the night brace (label Ao Dem), 2.1° (upper) and 4.5° at the lower angle; according to the clinic that angle lies toward the opposite side and is therefore recorded as −4.5° (past straight). The day brace had been weaned, so there is no day-brace film. The patient-name line printed on the films has been masked; other annotations are kept.
How to read: each horizontal bar is the lower Cobb angle of the same patient at one time point; the shorter the bar, the straighter the curve, and a bar to the left of the 0° line is a curve pushed past straight. Percentages are relative to the initial 38.65°. From 38.65° before treatment the angle was 8.0° out of the brace on 18 December 2022 (about 79% lower) and 5.8° out of the brace at the final film after about 29 months (about 85% lower), −4.5° in the night brace. This is the reduction of this one patient’s curve, not a treatment success rate.
How to read: each horizontal bar is the lower Cobb angle of the same patient at one time point; the shorter the bar, the straighter the curve, and a bar to the left of the 0° line is a curve pushed past straight. Percentages are relative to the initial 38.65°. From 38.65° before treatment the angle was 8.0° out of the brace on 18 December 2022 (about 79% lower) and 5.8° out of the brace at the final film after about 29 months (about 85% lower), −4.5° in the night brace. This is the reduction of this one patient’s curve, not a treatment success rate.

The clinic’s protocol: wear the brace until skeletal maturity is complete and the curve no longer responds to corrective force, then about a year more to be safe; after that the day brace is weaned first, then the night brace is reduced gradually. At the final film the patient had passed the day-brace weaning step and was at the night-brace stage. Complete night-brace weaning and further follow-up are needed for a final conclusion on the criterion of avoiding surgery; at 5.8°, far below the 50° threshold, this case is currently very far from the surgical threshold.

6. Comparison with studies worldwide

We searched PubMed for the average in-brace correction. We found no formal meta-analysis giving one overall average: the systematic review of Peeters et al. (Spine 2022; 28 studies) only synthesised predictive factors (curve flexibility is strongly linked to in-brace correction; CAD/CAM and plaster-cast braces do not differ clearly in correction), and the meta-analysis of Zheng et al. (Children 2023) reports only differences in degrees. We therefore compiled individual studies.

StudyPatientsBrace / curveIn-brace correction
Emans 1986 (Spine)295Boston brace, curves 20°–59°About 50% on average (best correction)
Lou 2016 (Eur Spine J)40 (validation group)Full-time TLSO40 ± 22%
Brown 2026 (J Pediatr Orthop)50Rigo Chêneau, curves 20°–40°55 ± 20%
Bonsignore-Opp 2025 (Spine Deform)89 (47 + 42)3D Rigo Chêneau versus conventional TLSO48% versus 22% (p < 0.001)
Davis 2026 (J Pediatr Orthop)99Providence, Boston, Rigo Chêneau; by curve locationThoracic 46 ± 34%; thoracolumbar 73 ± 36%
D’Amato 2001 (Spine)102Providence night brace; measured on supine films96% (major curve), 98% (minor curve)
Sample case (clinic)1Day and night braces; lumbar curve; against the same-day out-of-brace filmDay brace no further correction (9.8° versus 8.0°); night brace about 90% (0.8° versus 8.0°)
How to read: each horizontal bar is the mean in-brace correction of one study (the percentage by which the curve is reduced in the brace versus out of it); the dark green bars are the sample case, the grey bars are studies. The dashed orange line is the sample-size-weighted mean of the full-time-brace studies. The longer the bar, the more the brace corrects. Brace type, curve pattern and film position differ between studies; lumbar curves respond better than thoracic curves; the sample case is a single patient.
How to read: each horizontal bar is the mean in-brace correction of one study (the percentage by which the curve is reduced in the brace versus out of it); the dark green bars are the sample case, the grey bars are studies. The dashed orange line is the sample-size-weighted mean of the full-time-brace studies. The longer the bar, the more the brace corrects. Brace type, curve pattern and film position differ between studies; lumbar curves respond better than thoracic curves; the sample case is a single patient.

Arithmetic: for the five full-time-brace groups with a reported mean (Emans, Lou, Brown and the two groups of Bonsignore-Opp; 474 patients in all), the sample-size-weighted mean is about 47%. Individual study means range from 22% to 55% for full-time braces, up to 73% for thoracolumbar curves and 96–98% for the Providence night brace measured on supine films (supine films usually give a higher correction than standing films). This is our own arithmetic, not a formal meta-analysis.

Interpretation: the night brace’s in-brace correction in the sample case (about 90%) is about 43 percentage points above the weighted mean and above the mean for thoracolumbar curves in Davis’s study (73%); slightly below the Providence night brace (96–98%, but on supine films). The day brace’s correction (no further correction versus the same-day out-of-brace film) is below the studies’ average, but that percentage depends on the out-of-brace curve already being low (8.0°) and on measurement error (±5°). The main conclusion for this case is therefore that the night brace corrects very well, while the day brace’s effect cannot be judged from the films of 18 December 2022.

The final result, in the same unit (degrees of improvement): in the Boston study of Emans et al., at least a year after brace wear stopped, 49% of patients had a curve within ±5° of the start, 39% improved by 5°–15° and only 4% improved by more than 15°; the average out-of-brace correction was only about 23% at the start of weaning and 11% at the last follow-up. In Brown et al. the mean final major curve was 32 ± 12° (starting curves 20°–40°). This case improved by 32.9° (about 85%) out of the brace, which falls in the rare group in those studies. Note that the Boston study is old, covers many curve patterns, and the sample case is still wearing a night brace.

On accompanying outcomes: in D’Amato et al., the share with no progression beyond 5° was 93% for thoracolumbar and 94% for lumbar curves (all 102 children: 74%); in Brown et al., the group with correction of 45% or more had an 88% success rate. These rates use different criteria and cannot be compared directly with BrAIST’s rate of avoiding surgery.

7. Back photos over time

Surface photos help parents see the change in trunk posture over time. The photos are kept as in the clinic’s original, including the notes written on the body.

How to read: back photos of the same patient at three time points, age labels as in the original. Before treatment the trunk is shifted and the waistlines uneven; later the back is more symmetrical. The red laser lines in the third photo are vertical and horizontal references; the handwriting on the skin is the clinic’s note. Surface photos only illustrate and do not replace X-rays. Image source: dungcuchinhhinh.vn.
How to read: back photos of the same patient at three time points, age labels as in the original. Before treatment the trunk is shifted and the waistlines uneven; later the back is more symmetrical. The red laser lines in the third photo are vertical and horizontal references; the handwriting on the skin is the clinic’s note. Surface photos only illustrate and do not replace X-rays. Image source: dungcuchinhhinh.vn.

8. Scientific evidence: what explains this result?

Before comparing, three different kinds of number must be kept apart, because they measure different things and cannot be compared directly: (1) a trial success rate is the share of patients with a good outcome, e.g. in BrAIST a Cobb angle still below 50° at skeletal maturity (i.e. below the surgical threshold); (2) in-brace correction is the percentage by which the curve is reduced while wearing the brace; (3) the 85% of this case is the percentage reduction of one patient’s Cobb angle (38.65° → 5.8°).

MeasureWhat it measuresIn the studiesIn this case
1. Rate of avoiding the surgical threshold (the trials’ “success”)Share of patients with a Cobb angle below 50° at skeletal maturityBrAIST: 72% in the braced group versus 48% with observation; 90–93% when worn 12.9 hours/day or moreNo formal conclusion yet because night-brace weaning is not complete; currently 5.8° out of brace, far below 50°
2. In-brace correctionPercentage by which the curve is reduced while wearing the brace compared with not wearing itEmans: about 50% on average (best correction)First in-brace film (18 Dec 2022), against the same-day out-of-brace film (8.0°): night brace 0.8° (about 90%); day brace 9.8° (no further correction)
3. Reduction of the curvePercentage reduction of the out-of-brace Cobb angle compared with the startEmans: only 4% of patients improved by more than 15° after brace wear stopped38.65° → 5.8°: about 85% lower (32.9°)
  • Hours of wear. In BrAIST, children wearing the brace 12.9 hours/day or more had a 90–93% success rate (Cobb angle still below 50° at skeletal maturity) versus 41% for those wearing it 0–6 hours/day (Weinstein et al., NEJM 2013). Katz et al. (JBJS Am 2010; 100 patients) recorded no progression in 82% of those wearing it more than 12 hours/day versus 31% of those wearing it under 7 hours. This case wore the brace about 22 hours/day during treatment and never skipped it, nearly double BrAIST’s 12.9-hour threshold and nearly double the mean wear of 11.7 ± 3.6 hours/day in the study of Brown et al. (2026).
  • In-brace correction. The best-evidence synthesis of van den Bogaart et al. (Eur Spine J 2019; 26 studies) found strong evidence that lack of initial in-brace correction is associated with treatment failure. Brown et al. (2026) found that the group with correction of 45% or more had an 88% success rate (criterion: curve change of 5° or less) and 6% progressed to surgery, versus 41% and 29% below 45%. On this case’s first in-brace film the night brace’s correction (about 90%) is far above the 45% threshold, while the day brace gave no further correction against the same-day out-of-brace film.
  • A night brace. The randomised CONTRAIS trial in Sweden (Charalampidis et al., JAMA Netw Open 2024; 135 children, Cobb 25°–40°) found that a night brace kept 76% of children from progressing more than 6°, versus 53% with physical activity alone (OR 2.7). A secondary analysis (Acta Orthop 2025) found comparable prevention of progression to a full-time brace, with a tendency to a higher surgical risk in the night-brace group (11 versus 6 after 94 months, not statistically significant).
  • Exercise. The patient exercised daily but only with bar hanging and weight pulling (several hundred repetitions per session, load about one third of body weight), not scoliosis-specific exercises (PSSE/Schroth). The evidence for specific exercises is limited: in CONTRAIS the specific-exercise group reached 58% versus 53% with physical activity alone, a difference that was not statistically significant. The effect of exercise therefore cannot be separated from that of the brace in this case.
  • X-ray follow-up. The 2016 SOSORT guidelines call for periodic out-of-brace films to check effectiveness; this case has a baseline film before treatment, a first-fitting film and a final film.

These studies show associations at group level; they do not prove that those factors produced the result in this one patient. No study allows an exact success rate to be calculated for this case; an individual estimate can be made with the BrAIST-Calc tool (Dolan et al., Spine 2024), which needs age, sex, BMI, Risser stage, Cobb angle and average daily wear hours. For this case age (15), sex (female), Risser (3), Cobb angle (38.65°) and wear hours (about 22 hours/day) are known; only BMI is missing.

9. What cannot be concluded

  • This is one case. The result depends on age, skeletal maturity, curve pattern and adherence; it does not represent every child.
  • The adherence of this case (about 22 hours/day, never skipped, daily exercise) is very high compared with study averages (about 11.7 hours/day in Brown’s study), so the result may be hard to repeat with fewer hours of wear.
  • The patient is still wearing a night brace. A final conclusion on the criterion of avoiding surgery is possible only after complete night-brace weaning and further follow-up.
  • In-brace correction should not be chased at any cost: a good brace balances corrective force, comfort and the ability to wear it for enough hours.
  • A good result with conservative treatment does not mean every 39° curve avoids surgery; surgery remains the right option for many large curves or when bracing fails.

10. What parents can take from it

  • Detect early and have the whole spine X-rayed when you see uneven shoulders, an uneven waist or a rib hump on bending.
  • Choose a brace measured and designed individually, and check in-brace correction on the first in-brace X-ray.
  • Wear it for the prescribed hours and exercise as instructed; wearing it loose or skipping hours loses the effect.
  • Attend review as scheduled, with films both in and out of the brace, at least 3 months apart.
  • Weaning must follow the treating team’s specific instructions; do not stop on your own.

If your child has signs of scoliosis, or has been advised to have surgery and you want to explore a brace, bring the X-rays for advice. Hotline +84 985 211 888. 33 Ngo 167/37 Tay Son, Dong Da, Hanoi.

References

  1. Weinstein SL, Dolan LA, Wright JG, Dobbs MB. Effects of bracing in adolescents with idiopathic scoliosis. N Engl J Med. 2013;369(16):1512–1521.
  2. Negrini S, Donzelli S, Aulisa AG, et al. 2016 SOSORT guidelines: orthopaedic and rehabilitation treatment of idiopathic scoliosis during growth. Scoliosis Spinal Disord. 2018;13:3.
  3. Katz DE, Herring JA, Browne RH, Kelly DM, Birch JG. Brace wear control of curve progression in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2010;92(6):1343–1352. PMID 20516309.
  4. van den Bogaart M, van Royen BJ, Haanstra TM, de Kleuver M, Faraj SSA. Predictive factors for brace treatment outcome in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: a best-evidence synthesis. Eur Spine J. 2019;28(3):511–525. PMID 30607519.
  5. Emans JB, Kaelin A, Bancel P, Hall JE, Miller ME. The Boston bracing system for idiopathic scoliosis: follow-up results in 295 patients. Spine. 1986;11(8):792–801. PMID 3810295.
  6. Brown MW, et al. A 14% rate of surgery in modern Rigo Chêneau bracing for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: in-brace correction and brace wear contribute to treatment success. J Pediatr Orthop. 2026. PMID 42592965.
  7. Dolan LA, et al. BrAIST-Calc: prediction of individualized benefit from bracing for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Spine. 2024. PMID 37994691.
  8. Charalampidis A, Diarbakerli E, Dufvenberg M, et al. Nighttime bracing or exercise in moderate-grade adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: a randomized clinical trial (CONTRAIS). JAMA Netw Open. 2024;7(1):e2352492. PMID 38285447.
  9. Charalampidis A, et al. Effectiveness of nighttime vs full-time bracing… a secondary analysis of the CONTRAIS trial. Acta Orthop. 2025;96:437–442. PMID 40485598.
  10. Peeters CMM, et al. Predictive factors on initial in-brace correction in idiopathic scoliosis: a systematic review. Spine. 2022. PMID 35500086.
  11. Zheng Q, et al. Can computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing integrating with/without biomechanical simulation improve the effectiveness of spinal braces on adolescent idiopathic scoliosis? Children (Basel). 2023. PMID 37371158.
  12. Lou EH, et al. How quantity and quality of brace wear affect the brace treatment outcomes for AIS. Eur Spine J. 2016. PMID 26386869.
  13. Bonsignore-Opp L, et al. Three-dimensional Rigo Cheneau-style brace for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: higher in-brace correction and lower rates of curve progression. Spine Deform. 2025. PMID 40778973.
  14. Davis L, et al. A comparative analysis of patients with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis treated with Rigo Cheneau, Boston-style, and Providence braces: a preliminary report. J Pediatr Orthop. 2026. PMID 41287368.
  15. D’Amato CR, et al. Nighttime bracing with the Providence brace in adolescent girls with idiopathic scoliosis. Spine. 2001;26(18):2006–2012. PMID 11547201.
  16. Cheng JC, Castelein RM, Chu WC, et al. Adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Nat Rev Dis Primers. 2015;1:15030. PMID 27188385.
  17. Hình ảnh và số liệu ca bệnh / Case images and data: dungcuchinhhinh.vn (website của Lê Hoàn Prosthetics & Orthotics).

Do you or a loved one need advice?

Book an in-person assessment in Hanoi or send your file for a remote consultation. We reply within 24 hours.

Book a consultation