American journal of physical medicine & rehabilitation · 2025
Comparison of the Efficiency of Spiral Stabilization and Core Stabilization Exercises in the Treatment of Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis.
СтатьяСравнительное исследованиеПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Zeng Cheng, Lu Haohan, Jiang Siyi, Lin Ziling, Wang Naizhen, Wang Yajun, Shi Shaoyun, Su Chanjuan, Ye Guobiao
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this retrospective cohort study was to evaluate and compare the effectiveness of spiral stabilization and core stabilization exercises in adolescents with idiopathic scoliosis.
DESIGN: Data from adolescent idiopathic scoliosis were analyzed, dividing by clinical decision and treatment availability into spiral stabilization ( n = 24, age 10.75 ± 2.57 yrs) and core stabilization ( n = 24, age 11.71 ± 1.99 yrs). Baseline characteristics, including sex, body mass index, and Risser stage, were comparable (all P > 0.05). Each intervention consisted of supervised, active sessions twice weekly for 5 wks (30 mins/session), followed by a 6-mo home program. Outcomes included Cobb angle (primary) and pain (visual analog scale), trunk rotation (angle of trunk rotation), clavicle angle, pelvic obliquity, trunk aesthetics (trunk aesthetic clinical evaluation), quality of life (SRS-22), and joint hypermobility (Beighton score), all assessed before and after intervention.
RESULTS: Both groups improved significantly in Cobb angle, trunk aesthetics, and clinical outcomes (all P < 0.05). The spiral stabilization group demonstrated significantly greater improvements in Cobb angle, trunk rotation, clavicle angle, pelvic obliquity, and self-image (Scoliosis Research Society-22 questionnaire) compared with core stabilization (all P < 0.05). Beighton score correlated positively with Cobb angle correction (ρ = 0.31, P = 0.033), indicating flexibility may modestly influence outcomes.
CONCLUSIONS: Spiral stabilization was more effective than core stabilization in improving spinal alignment, aesthetics, and self-image. Flexibility appears to influence treatment.
DESIGN: Data from adolescent idiopathic scoliosis were analyzed, dividing by clinical decision and treatment availability into spiral stabilization ( n = 24, age 10.75 ± 2.57 yrs) and core stabilization ( n = 24, age 11.71 ± 1.99 yrs). Baseline characteristics, including sex, body mass index, and Risser stage, were comparable (all P > 0.05). Each intervention consisted of supervised, active sessions twice weekly for 5 wks (30 mins/session), followed by a 6-mo home program. Outcomes included Cobb angle (primary) and pain (visual analog scale), trunk rotation (angle of trunk rotation), clavicle angle, pelvic obliquity, trunk aesthetics (trunk aesthetic clinical evaluation), quality of life (SRS-22), and joint hypermobility (Beighton score), all assessed before and after intervention.
RESULTS: Both groups improved significantly in Cobb angle, trunk aesthetics, and clinical outcomes (all P < 0.05). The spiral stabilization group demonstrated significantly greater improvements in Cobb angle, trunk rotation, clavicle angle, pelvic obliquity, and self-image (Scoliosis Research Society-22 questionnaire) compared with core stabilization (all P < 0.05). Beighton score correlated positively with Cobb angle correction (ρ = 0.31, P = 0.033), indicating flexibility may modestly influence outcomes.
CONCLUSIONS: Spiral stabilization was more effective than core stabilization in improving spinal alignment, aesthetics, and self-image. Flexibility appears to influence treatment.