At The ScoliClinic, our mission has always been bigger than treating scoliosis; we’re here to change the landscape of scoliosis care in BC and beyond. That means not only delivering exceptional, individualized treatment, but also investing our time, resources, and energy into research that pushes the field forward.
As a clinic that’s fully dedicated to working with people with scoliosis, we see unique patterns and treatment trends through our team’s clinical work every day. While we’re not researchers ourselves, we’ve built strong collaborations with leading Canadian scientists to explore new assessment, monitoring, and treatment techniques.
Our pursuits bridge a critical gap: researchers are often challenged to find participants, while many of our clients are eager to contribute and benefit from novel approaches. By bringing these worlds together, we’re advancing knowledge, improving care, and staying true to our vision of transforming the scoliosis care pathway for future generations.
Our Research Partners
Dr. Edmond Lou, Ph.D.
Professor, Faculty of Eng.
University of Alberta
Dr. Eric Parent, Ph.D.
Professor, Fac. of Rehab Med.
University of Alberta
Dr. Mahdieh Khodaei, Ph.D.
Post-Doctoral Fellow
University of Alberta
Carl Ganzert, C.O.(c), M.Sc.
Certified Orthotist, Partner
Hodgson Orthopedic Group
The ScoliClinic Research Team
Lauren Gleed, M.Sc, MPT
Physiotherapist
Andrea Mendoza, MPT, MBA
Founder/Physiotherapist
Bijan Mohamed, MPT
Physiotherapist
Shahla Hassanpour, BScPT
Physiotherapist
Publications
Defining “successful” treatment outcomes in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: a scoping review
Joarder, I., Taniguchi, S., Mendoza, A. et al. Defining “successful” treatment outcomes in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: a scoping review. Eur Spine J 32, 1204–1244 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-023-07592-w
Purpose
Adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) is the most common type of scoliosis that affects children aged 10–18 years old, manifesting in a three-dimensional spinal deformity. This study aimed to explore outcome measures used in defining AIS treatment success. Particularly, analyzing the extent of qualitative and quantitative (radiographic and quality of life domains) measures to evaluate AIS and whether AIS treatment approaches (surgical, bracing and physiotherapy) influences outcomes used as proxies of treatment success.
Methods
EMBASE and MEDLINE databases were used to conduct a systematic scoping review with 654 search queries. 158 papers met the inclusion criteria and were screened for data extraction. Extractable variables included: study characteristics, study participant characteristics, type of study, type of intervention approach and outcome measures.
Results
All 158 studies measured quantitative outcomes. 61.38% of papers used radiographic outcomes whilst 38.62% of papers used quantitative quality of life outcomes to evaluate treatment success. Irrespective of treatment intervention utilized, the type of quantitative outcome measure recorded were similar in proportion. Moreover, of the radiographic outcome measures, the subcategory Cobb angle was predominantly used across all intervention approaches. For quantitative quality of life measures, questionnaires investigating multiple domains such as SRS were primarily used as proxies of AIS treatment success across all intervention approaches.
Conclusion
This study identified that no articles employed qualitative measures of describing the psychosocial implications of AIS in defining treatment success. Although quantitative measures have merit in clinical diagnoses and management, there is increasing value in using qualitative methods such as thematic analysis in guiding clinicians to develop a biopsychosocial approach for patient care.
Identifying predictors of brace treatment outcomes for adolescents or adults with idiopathic scoliosis: a systematic review
Khodaei, M., Parent, E.C., Wong, J. et al. Identifying predictors of brace treatment outcomes for adolescents or adults with idiopathic scoliosis: a systematic review. Eur Spine J 34, 1827–1848 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-025-08736-w
Purpose
This systematic review aimed to identify predictors of brace treatment outcomes for adolescents or adults with idiopathic scoliosis.
Methods
Four databases including MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, and CINAHL were searched. Free text and indexed terms identifying the populations, predictions analyses and key outcomes were combined to search the literature. Pairs from eight independent reviewers conducted abstracts and full-text screening, and data extraction. The Quality in Prognostic Studies (QUIPS) tool was used to assess the risk of bias (ROB). Strength of evidence summary statements were formulated based on the risk of bias and the consistency of the research findings.
Results
The search found 2224 articles. After screening, seven articles were included. Only one article showed low ROB, while the others showed moderate ROB. All articles reported on patient-related outcome measurements (PROMS) of quality of life (QOL). Only one parameter achieved limited strength of evidence; shorter treatment time from one study predicted better long-term SRS-22 total scores. For other predictors, the level of evidence was unclear. Other predictors of long-term outcomes (> 1 year follow-up), from only 1 study on each outcome, were: larger Cobb angle predicted worse Spinal Appearance Questionnaire (SAQ) chest scores and worse depression; higher age predicted better SAQ curve scores, larger apical translations predicted worse SAQ shoulders and chest scores; a passive introverted personality or an active outgoing (MPI) character type predicted worse SRS-22 satisfaction; higher BMI predicted better SAQ curve, Rolland-Morris questionnaire (RMQ) lumbosacral pain, Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale (QDS) moving scores, and worse SRS-22 total; larger vital capacity predicted better QDS score; longer bracing (total) predicted worse depression; negative parental attitudes predicted worse depression; higher Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire emotional symptoms, peer problems, prosocial behavior, and total scores predicted worse depression. Poor compliance from one short-term follow-up study predicted worse change of brace questionnaire (BRQ) for health perception, pain, physical and emotional functioning, and total scores. Moderate evidence from two studies with low and moderate RoB showed that age and Cobb angle did not predict long-term total SRS-22 score for prediction.
Conclusion
Eleven parameters predicted bracing outcomes, but most studies presented moderate risk of bias. Only one parameter, longer treatment time, with limited strength of evidence was predictive of better long-term SRS-22 total scores. Since most findings still present an unclear level of evidence, common weaknesses were identified to encourage design of high-quality studies predicting bracing outcomes.
