This guideline has been discussed by the SOSORT guideline committee prior to the SOSORT consensus meeting in Milan, January 2005 and published in its first version on the SOSORT homepage: http://www.sosort.org/meetings.php. After the meeting it again has been discussed by the members of the SOSORT guideline committee to establish the final 2005 version submitted to Scoliosis, the official Journal of the society, in December 2005.

Multimodal therapies comprising spa applications are widely used as non-pharmaceutical treatment options for musculoskeletal diseases. The purpose of this randomized, controlled, open pilot study was to elucidate the involvement of the endocannabinoid system in a multimodal therapy approach. Twenty-five elderly patients with knee osteoarthritis (OA) received a 2-week spa therapy with or without combination of low-dose radon therapy in the Bad Gastein radon gallery. A 10-point numerical rating scale (pain in motion and at rest), WOMAC questionnaire, and the EuroQol-5D (EQ-5D) questionnaire were recorded at baseline, and during treatment period at weeks one and two, and at 3-month and 6-month follow-ups. Plasma levels of the endocannabinoid anandamide (AEA) were determined at baseline and at 2 weeks, and serum levels of several cartilage metabolism markers at all five time-points. A significant and sustained reduction of self-reported knee pain was observed in the study population, but no further significant effect of the additional radon therapy up and above base therapy. This pain reduction was accompanied by a significant reduction of AEA plasma levels during treatment in both groups. No significant differences were seen in serum marker concentrations between the groups treated with or without radon, but a small reduction of serum cartilage degradation markers was observed during treatment in both groups. This is the first study investigating AEA levels in the context of a non-pharmacological OA treatment. Since the endocannabinoid system represents a potential target for the development of new therapeutics, further studies will have to elucidate its involvement in OA pain.

Objective: This paper deals with scoliosis treatment over the past 50 years. The review of the literature from the point of view of the current formation of opinion. From conservative forms of treatment, the pendulum has swung to surgical measures. To visualize this temporarily rejection of conservative treatment is the goal of this article. Materials and Methods: A review of the literature over the last 50 years was performed from the perspective of current opinion, this with a pinch of personal experience in bracing and scoliosis surgery since 1972. The MESH terms (scoliosis, idiopathic scoliosis, adolescent idiopathic scoliosis) are presented in their number in a flow diagram and the publications on conservative therapies (brace, physiotherapy) are compared to surgical therapies (surgery). Opinions of “eminences” in the 1980s have been replaced by the rules of evidence-based medicine (EBM) at end of the 1990s. This transition will be visualized in the graph of PubMed statistics. In a statement, the future scoliosis treatment is derived from history. Results: The total number of publications shows a ratio of brace to surgery of 13.9% and physiotherapy to surgery of 6.7% for the MESH terms “scoliosis”. When “scoliosis” is supplemented with “idiopathic”, the brace to surgery ratio changes from 24.5% and physiotherapy to surgery 8.2%. Focusing on adolescent scoliosis the addition of “adolescent” changes the brace to surgery ratio from 24.8% and physiotherapy to surgery 8.1%. In the total number of publications, “adolescent idiopathic scoliosis” is treated by 25.26%. The patient numbers of our own scoliosis outpatient clinic (1482 patients) over the last 15 years show a ratio of brace (Cobb angle 20°–50° brace-indication) to surgery (Cobb angle >50° indication to surgery) of 1 to 0.06. The scientific focus on surgical therapy is evident from the figures of PubMed mentioned. The number of conservative publications shows a depression in the 1990s. In the remainder of this article, opinion-forming developments are outlined and supported by literature citations, responsible for the recovery of publications on conservative scoliosis treatment. New technologies provide additional treatment options. Conclusions: In this sense, brace therapy is a success story with a future in the digital world of AI (artificial intelligence), mathematical model calculations, and production perhaps from the 3D printer. The central message from the history of the last 50 years is: “The scientific review of treatment results is essential for the further acceptance of brace treatment.”

The regeneration of an intervertebral disc can only be successful if the cause of the degeneration is known and eliminated. The lumbosacral transitional vertebrae (LSTV) offer itself as a model for IVD (intervertebral disc) regeneration. The aim of this work is to support this statement. In our scoliosis outpatient clinic, 1482 patients were radiologically examined, and ambiguous lumbosacral junction underwent MRI examination. Patients with Castellvi classification type II–IV were included and the results are compared with the current literature in PubMed (12 October 2022). The LSTV are discussed as a possible IVD model. A total of 115 patients were diagnosed with LSTV Castellvi type II–IV. A Castellvi distribution type IIA (n-55), IIB (n-24), IIIA (n-20), IIIB (n-10) and IV (n-6) can be found. In all, 64 patients (55.7%) reported recurrent low-back pain (LBP). Scoliosis (Cobb angle >10°) was also confirmed in 72 patients (58 female and 14 male) and 56 (75.7%) had unilateral pathology. The wide variation in the literature regarding the prevalence of the LSTV (4.6–35.6%) is reasoned by the doubtful diagnosis of Castellvi type I. The LSTV present segments with reduced to absent mobility and at the same time leads to overload of the adjacent segments. This possibility of differentiation is seen as the potential for a spinal model.

Background: The current literature is not conclusive for spinal orthosis treatment in low back pain. Therefore, two questions have to be answered: Does the current literature support the indication of spinal orthosis treatment in low back pain? Which treatment concept can be derived from the result? Method: The 30 highest-rated literature citations (PubMed: best match, 30 December 2021) dealing with low back pain and spine orthosis were included in the study. Excluded were all articles related to Kinesio Taping, scoliosis, physical exercise, or dealing with side effects and unrelated to treatment effect. Thus, the literature list refers only to “low back pain and spine orthoses”. These articles were analyzed according to the PRISMA criteria and divided according to “specific diagnosis”, when the cause of pain was explained (group A), or when “specific diagnosis is not given” (group B). The articles were also distinguished by the information about the orthosis. Articles with biomechanical information about the function of the orthoses were called “diagnosis-based orthosis” (group C). All other articles were part of the group “unspecific orthotic treatment” (group D). The results were compared to each other in terms of effectiveness. According to anatomical causes, a concept of orthosis selection depending on diagnosis of low back pain for clinical practice was developed. The risk of bias lies in the choice of the MESH terms. The synthesis of the results was a clinical treatment concept based on findings from the current literature. Results: The literature citations with 1749 patients and 2160 citations of literature were processed; 21 prospective clinical or biomechanical studies and 9 review articles were included. The combination of literature citations according to “specific diagnosis” (group A) and “diagnosis based orthosis” (group C) was very likely to lead to a therapeutic effect (seven articles). No positive effect could be found in four articles, all dealing with postoperative treatment. When “specific diagnosis is not given” (group B) and combined with “unspecific orthotic treatment” (group D), therapy remained without measurable effect (15 articles). An effect was described in four articles (three biomechanical studies and one postoperative study). In review articles, according to specific diagnosis, only one article dealt with fractures and another with stenosis. In all review articles where specific diagnosis was not given, no effect with spine orthoses could be found. Using this knowledge, we created a clinical treatment concept. The structure was based on diagnosis and standardized orthoses. According to pain location and pathology (muscle, intervertebral disc, bone, statics, postoperative) the orthoses were classified to anatomical extent and the mechanical limitation (bandage, bodice, corset, orthosis with shoulder straps and erecting orthosis). Conclusion: The effectiveness of spinal orthoses could not be deduced from the current literature. The most serious limitation was the inconsistency of the complaint and the imprecise designation of the orthoses. Interpretation: Articles with a precise allocation of the complaint and a description of the orthosis showed a positive effect. The treatment concept presented here is intended to provide a basis for answering the question concerning the effectiveness of spinal orthoses as an accompanying treatment option in low back pain.