The Effectiveness of Schroth vs. SEAS Exercise Methods for Correcting Idiopathic Scoliosis in Adolescent: A Systematic Review

Arash Khaledi, H. Minoonejad, H. Daneshmandi, Mahdieh Akoochakian, M. Gheitasi
{"title":"The Effectiveness of Schroth vs. SEAS Exercise Methods for Correcting Idiopathic Scoliosis in Adolescent: A Systematic Review","authors":"Arash Khaledi, H. Minoonejad, H. Daneshmandi, Mahdieh Akoochakian, M. Gheitasi","doi":"10.32598/ptj.12.1.517.3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Purpose: Adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) is the most common type of scoliosis and the most complex deformity of the spine. The promising results of Schroth and Scientific Exercise Approach to Scoliosis (SEAS), among other methods of exercise therapy, have attracted the attention of many researchers and therapists. However, there is still vague evidence of their effectiveness and the superiority of one. Therefore, this review aims to evaluate and compare the effects of Schroth and SEAS exercises on correcting AIS. Method: Searches were conducted in databases including Cochrane, MEDLINE, PubMed, Scopus, and Google Scholar during 2005 to December 2021 using keywords related to AIS. Inclusion criteria were the papers using Schroth and SEAS exercises as an intervention. The PEDro scale was used for evaluating the quality of the papers. Results: Ten papers with an average PEDro score of 6.2 were licensed to enter the study. Five randomized controlled trials (RCT) and one clinical controlled trials (CCT) reported a significant reduction in Cobb angle (CA) (greater than 5°) by using the Schroth method (moderate). Moreover, two CCTs and one RCT indicated a significant reduction in CA (greater than 5°) by using the SEAS method (limited). However, no paper was found for choosing superiority between Schroth and SEAS (no evidence). Conclusion: Although there is limited to moderate evidence in the studies, it seems that both Schroth and SEAS exercises were effective in improving AIS, which was more prominent in the study of Schroth method. Nevertheless, accessing to high-quality papers is necessary for achieving more accurate results in the future.","PeriodicalId":436083,"journal":{"name":"Physical Treatments: Specific Physical Therapy Journal","volume":"125 3 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Physical Treatments: Specific Physical Therapy Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.32598/ptj.12.1.517.3","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Purpose: Adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) is the most common type of scoliosis and the most complex deformity of the spine. The promising results of Schroth and Scientific Exercise Approach to Scoliosis (SEAS), among other methods of exercise therapy, have attracted the attention of many researchers and therapists. However, there is still vague evidence of their effectiveness and the superiority of one. Therefore, this review aims to evaluate and compare the effects of Schroth and SEAS exercises on correcting AIS. Method: Searches were conducted in databases including Cochrane, MEDLINE, PubMed, Scopus, and Google Scholar during 2005 to December 2021 using keywords related to AIS. Inclusion criteria were the papers using Schroth and SEAS exercises as an intervention. The PEDro scale was used for evaluating the quality of the papers. Results: Ten papers with an average PEDro score of 6.2 were licensed to enter the study. Five randomized controlled trials (RCT) and one clinical controlled trials (CCT) reported a significant reduction in Cobb angle (CA) (greater than 5°) by using the Schroth method (moderate). Moreover, two CCTs and one RCT indicated a significant reduction in CA (greater than 5°) by using the SEAS method (limited). However, no paper was found for choosing superiority between Schroth and SEAS (no evidence). Conclusion: Although there is limited to moderate evidence in the studies, it seems that both Schroth and SEAS exercises were effective in improving AIS, which was more prominent in the study of Schroth method. Nevertheless, accessing to high-quality papers is necessary for achieving more accurate results in the future.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Schroth与SEAS运动方法对纠正青少年特发性脊柱侧凸的有效性:一项系统综述
目的:青少年特发性脊柱侧凸(AIS)是脊柱侧凸最常见的类型,也是脊柱最复杂的畸形。在其他运动治疗方法中,Schroth和Scientific Exercise Approach to Scoliosis (SEAS)的令人鼓舞的结果引起了许多研究人员和治疗师的注意。然而,仍然有模糊的证据表明它们的有效性和一个的优越性。因此,本综述旨在评估和比较Schroth和SEAS练习对纠正AIS的效果。方法:2005年至2021年12月在Cochrane、MEDLINE、PubMed、Scopus、Google Scholar等数据库中使用AIS相关关键词进行检索。纳入标准是采用Schroth和SEAS练习作为干预的论文。采用PEDro量表评价论文质量。结果:10篇平均PEDro评分为6.2分的论文获准进入研究。5项随机对照试验(RCT)和1项临床对照试验(CCT)报告采用Schroth方法可显著降低Cobb角(CA)(大于5°)(中度)。此外,两项cct和一项RCT显示,通过使用SEAS方法(有限),CA显著降低(大于5°)。然而,没有发现在Schroth和SEAS之间选择优势的论文(无证据)。结论:虽然研究证据有限,但似乎Schroth和SEAS练习对AIS的改善都是有效的,这在Schroth方法的研究中更为突出。然而,获取高质量的论文对于将来获得更准确的结果是必要的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Is online exercise at home more effective than hydrotherapy and physiotherapy in patients with non-specific chronic low back pain? A randomized clinical trial The effect of the neuromuscular, strength and combined training on balance and performance in female basketball players Comparing the relations of demographic indicators, health status and physical fitness, socioeconomic indicators and sexual function with quality of life in women with chronic non-specific low back pain Tele-rehabilitation the benefits and drawbacks Do patellofemoral pain patients have higher loading rate compared to healthy indivalues? A systematic review and meta-analysis
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1