HIỆU QUẢ, ĐỘ BỀN VÀ TRẢI NGHIỆM CỦA BỆNH NHÂN KHI SỬ DỤNG ÁO NẸP CHỈNH HÌNH CHẾ TẠO BẰNG CÔNG NGHỆ IN 3D TRONG ĐIỀU TRỊ VẸO CỘT SỐNG VÔ CĂN TẠI BỆNH VIỆN PHỤC HỒI CHỨC NĂNG - ĐIỀU TRỊ BỆNH NGHỀ NGHIỆP

Abstract

Introduction: Bracing is the best-evidenced conservative option in idiopathic scoliosis, yet conventional plaster casting is time-consuming and operator-dependent, while longitudinal data on 3D-printed orthoses in Viet Nam remain scarce, particularly regarding material durability and patient experience. Objectives: This study therefore aimed to quantify Cobb angle improvement, material durability and patient experience after 12 months of wearing a 3D-printed spinal orthosis. Materials and methods: A single-arm, pre-post clinical intervention study was conducted in 30 skeletally immature patients (Risser below 5, Cobb angle 25-60°) at the Ho Chi Minh City Hospital for Rehabilitation - Professional Diseases between 2024 and 2026. Cobb angles were measured on EOS radiographs before bracing and at 12 months; experience and quality of life were assessed with a structured questionnaire and the SRS-22r; material properties were tested at QUATEST 3. Results: At 12 months the major-curve Cobb angle decreased from 34.8 ± 7.7° to 26.0 ± 8.7° (p < 0.001); the proportion of severe curves fell from 20.0% to 6.7% and 53.3% of patients moved below 25°, with no curve progressing by 5° or more. Relative correction was higher in the 25-40° group than in the > 40° group (29.0 ± 13.1% versus 15.3 ± 10.0%; p = 0.029). Tensile strength of three specimens averaged 34.43 ± 0.35 MPa, exceeding the 16 MPa thresholds, whereas Shore D hardness reached 77, above the pre-specified 50-60 range. The most frequent local complaint was pressure-site pain (32.0%), with no skin infection or muscle atrophy; the total SRS-22r score was 3.7 ± 0.6. Among the four variables examined, actual daily wearing time was the only one positively correlated with Cobb angle improvement (rho = 0.55; p = 0.002). Conclusion: The 3D-printed orthosis produced encouraging early correction, while the material acceptance criteria require revision.