Efficacy, safety, and economics of bracing after spine surgery: a systematic review of the literature

Trends in Spinal Orthosis Utilization Among Patients Insured Through Medicare Part B

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective population-based database analysis from the Physician/Supplier Procedure Summary Medicare/Medicaid Data Set.

OBJECTIVE

To provide a comprehensive analysis of trends in spinal orthosis utilization over a 12-year period.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Widespread prescription of spinal orthosis persists, despite evidence suggesting equivocal efficacy in many spinal conditions. The utilization of spinal orthosis on a national level, including prescribing specialty data, has not been previously analyzed.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Health care common procedure coding system codes for cervical (CO), thoracic-lumbar-sacral (TLSO), lumbar (LO), lumbar-sacral (LSO), and cervical-thoracic-lumbar-sacral (CTLSO) orthosis were used to determine spinal orthosis utilization from 2010 to 2021. Provider specialty codes were utilized to compare trends between select specialties. In addition, a neurosurgical CO analysis based on subclassifications of cervical bracing was performed. Linear trendlines were implemented to elucidate and present trends by slope (β).

RESULTS

Among 332,241 claims, decreases in CO (β=-0.3387), TLSO (β=-0.0942), LO (β=-0.3485), and LSO (β=-0.1545) per 100,000 Medicare Part B enrollees and CTLSO (β=-0.052) per 1,000,000 Medicare Part B enrollees were observed. Decreases among neurosurgery (β=-7.9208), family medicine (β=-1.0097), emergency medicine (β=-2.1958), internal medicine (β=-1.1151), interventional pain management (β=-5.0945), and chiropractic medicine (β=-49.012), and increases among orthopedic surgery (β=5.5891), pain management (β=30.416), physical medicine and rehabilitation (β=4.6524), general practice (β=79.111), and osteopathic manipulative medicine (β=45.303) in total spinal orthosis use per 100,000 specialty claims were observed. Analysis of subclassifications of cervical orthosis among neurosurgeons revealed decreases in flexible (β=-1.7641), semirigid (β=-0.6157), and collar bracing (β=-2.7603), and an increase in multipost collar bracing (β=2.2032) per 100 neurosurgical cervical orthosis claims.

CONCLUSIONS

While utilization of spinal orthosis decreased between 2010 and 2021, increased utilization was observed among a subset of specialties. Identifying these specialties allows for focused research and educational efforts to minimize unnecessary durable medical equipment use for effective health care spending.

Association between Adverse Psychological Emotions and Postoperative Brace for Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis: A Prospective Cohort Study with Propensity Score Matching

OBJECTIVE

Although the advantages of postoperative braces have been verified in many fields, it is not clear whether postoperative braces can help reduce patients' adverse psychological emotions such as kinesiophobia, anxiety, and depression. This study aims to analyze whether the use of a postoperative brace helps reduce adverse psychological emotions in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) patients undergoing spinal deformity surgeries.

METHODS

All consecutive patients who underwent spinal corrective surgeries at our institution between April 2023 and July 2023 formed the prospective cohort. Outcome measures were collected in the preoperative period, 3 months after surgery, and 6 months after surgery. All patients were assessed using the Tampa scale for kinesiophobia (TSK), the hospital anxiety and depression scale (HADS), and the numerical rating scale (NRS). A statistical model of propensity score matching was used to eliminate potential selection bias and maintain comparability. Multivariate linear regression models were used to determine the relationship between postoperative brace and adverse psychological emotions.

RESULTS

After propensity score matching, this study ultimately enrolled 150 patients. There were no significant differences between the two groups in terms of demographic and perioperative variables. The fully adjusted model showed that the TSK scores of the non-brace group at the 3-month (ꞵ = 2.50, 95% CI 0.80-4.20, p = 0.005) and 6-month follow-up (ꞵ = 2.75, 95% CI 0.75-4.74, p = 0.007) were significantly higher than those of the brace group. The HADS score of the non-brace group at the 3-month follow-up was significantly higher than that of the brace group (ꞵ = 1.75, 95% CI 0.28-3.22, p = 0.019). The NRS score of the non-brace group at the 3-month follow-up was significantly higher than that of the brace group (ꞵ = 0.69, 95% CI 0.05-1.33, p = 0.034). At the 6-month follow-up, there were no significant difference for HADS score or NRS score between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

In the early postoperative period, the postoperative brace could provide AIS patients with psychological supports and help them reduce the frequency of adverse psychological emotions. The postoperative brace could continuously improve the fear of movement within 6 months after surgery, and help reduce anxiety, depression, and pain within 3 months after surgery.

Effectiveness of lumbar braces after lumbar surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To systematically analyze the effectiveness of lumbar braces in patients after lumbar spine surgery.

METHODS

The databases, including PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), were searched to identify the randomized controlled trials (RCTs), case-series or case-control studies on the use of lumbar braces after lumbar spine surgery. The two authors independently assessed the quality of the included study and extracted the data. The statistical analysis was performed using Revman 5.4 software.

RESULTS

9 English papers and 1 Chinese paper were included in the present work, involving a total of 2646 patients (2181 in the experimental group and 465 in the control group). The differences in preoperative VAS, postoperative VAS, preoperative ODI, postoperative ODI, length of hospital stay, postoperative complications, and surgical comparison were not statistically significant (p > 0.05). However, postoperative surgical site infection incidence was lower in the lumbar brace group than those without lumbar brace (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Whether or not the use of lumbar braces after lumbar fixation has a negligible impact on clinical outcomes was studied. Subsequent studies could further demonstrate whether the use of lumbar braces after lumbar surgery could reduce the incidence of surgical site infections.

Effect of Zoledronic Acid on the Vertebral Body Bone Mineral Density After Instrumented Intervertebral Fusion in Postmenopausal Women With Osteoporosis

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effect of zoledronic acid, an anti-osteoporosis treatment, during the perioperative period on vertebral body bone mineral density (BMD) after spinal fusion surgery in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis.

METHODS

The medical records of postmenopausal patients with osteoporosis who underwent instrumented intervertebral fusion for lumbar degenerative disease between July 2016 and May 2018 were reviewed. Patients with comorbidities or condition which might affect bone metabolism were excluded. Forty-six patients did not receive anti-osteoporosis treatment before surgery and during the postoperative follow-up (untreated group). Another 46 patients who was treated with zoledronic acid perioperatively were matched for age and body mass index to patients in the untreated group. Preoperative and postoperative dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DEXA) records and lumbar BMD values of the involved spinal segments and of the cephalad levels, as well as of the femoral neck were recorded.

RESULTS

A significant decrease of cephalad vertebral BMD values was observed in the untreated group (-11.47%, P < 0.001), with a slight decrease of the femoral neck (-1.28%, P > 0.05). Zoledronic acid prevented rapid bone loss after instrumented intervertebral fusion surgery, with a bone loss in the cephalad levels of -0.76 ± 4.71% compared to -11.47 ± 16.45% in the untreated group (P < 0.001). while the change in BMD of the femoral neck in the treated group was 1.52 ± 5.88% compared to -1.28 ± 6.58% in the untreated group (P = 0.036).

CONCLUSIONS

Perioperative zoledronic acid treatment may offer protection against a significant decrease in BMD of cephalad vertebrae after spinal fusion surgery among postmenopausal women with osteoporosis.

Does the use of postoperative brace help preventing mechanical complications following adult deformity surgery?

PURPOSE

There is scarce information regarding the effectiveness of postoperative braces in decreasing mechanical complications and reinterventions following adult deformity surgery.

METHODS

Retrospective matched cohort study from a prospective adult deformity multicenter database. We selected operated patients, fused to the pelvis, > 6 instrumented levels, and minimum 2 year follow-up. Three hundred and eighty patients were separated into two groups (Brace-3 months TLSO-vs No Brace) and then matched controlling for age, gender and frailty. We studied demographic, intraoperative, and postoperative spinopelvic parameters. Both groups were compared regarding complications and reinterventions in the first 2 postoperative years, using univariate and multivariate logistic regression analysis.

RESULTS

We finally analyzed 359 matched patients, mean age of 65.3 ± 8.9 years, frailty-index (0.43 ± 0.15), and mostly females (84%). 224 patients wore a postoperative brace (B) and 135 didn't (NoB). They showed no difference in intraoperative variables and postoperative spinopelvic alignment. They differed (P < 0.05) in: Pelvic incidence (B:58° ± 13 vs NoB:54.5° ± 13); BMI (B:25.8 ± 4 vs NoB:27.4 ± 5); upper instrumented vertebra (B:81.7% T8-L1 vs NoB:72.6% T8-L1), and the use of multiple rods (B:47.3% vs NoB:18.5%). Univariate analysis showed a higher rate of mechanical complications and reinterventions when not using a brace. As well as higher NRS-back and leg pain at 6 weeks. However, multivariate analysis selected the use of multiple rods as the only independent factor protecting against mechanical complications (OR: 0.38; CI 95% 0.22-0.64) and reinterventions (OR: 0.41; CI 95% 0.216-0.783).

CONCLUSION

After controlling for potential confounders, our study could not identify the protective effect of postoperative braces preventing mechanical complications and reinterventions in the first two postoperative years.

Spine Bracing: When to Utilize-A Narrative Review

Spinal bracing is a common non-surgical technique that allows clinicians to prevent and correct malformations or injuries of a patient's spinal column. This review will explore the current standards of practice on spinal brace utilization. Specifically, it will highlight bracing usage in traumatic injuries, pregnancy, pediatrics, osteoporosis, and hyperkyphosis; address radiological findings concurrent with brace usage; and provide an overview of the braces currently available and advancements in the field. In doing so, we aim to improve clinicians' understanding and knowledge of bracing in common spinal pathologies to promote their appropriate use and improve patient outcomes.

Effectiveness of Lumbosacral Orthosis After Discectomy for Lumbar Disk Herniation: A Prospective Comparative Study

STUDY DESIGN

A prospective comparative study.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the benefits of postoperative application of lumbosacral orthosis after single-level discectomy for lumbar disk herniation (LDH).

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Although many surgeons use postoperative lumbosacral orthosis for patients with LDH, there is no clear evidence to support or deny its effectiveness.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Ninety-nine consecutive patients who underwent the microscopic discectomy were included. They were divided into two groups: orthosis group and nonorthosis group, before surgery. The recurrence rate and reoperation rate were compared between the two groups at four-week, six-month, and one-year follow-up. Japanese Orthopaedic Association Score for lumbar spine (L-JOA score) at two-week and one-year follow-up, lower extremities and low back pain's visual analog scale (VAS) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) at six-month and one-year follow-up were compared.

RESULTS

Forty-two patients in the orthosis group and 39 patients in the nonorthosis group were followed up for at least one-year after surgery. Recurrence occurred in three patients (7.1%) in the orthosis group and six (15.4%) in the nonorthosis group within one-year. Two patients (4.8%) in the orthosis group and two patients (5.1%) in the nonorthosis group underwent reoperation. There were no significant intergroup differences in the recurrence rate and in the reoperation rate. No significant difference was also observed between the two groups in L-JOA score, ODI, VAS of low back pain, and leg pain at one-year after surgery. Furthermore, at any other follow-up period, no significant differences were observed between the two groups in recurrence rate, reoperation rate, L-JOA score, VAS of low back/leg pain, or ODI.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of a postoperative orthosis did not reduce recurrence or reoperation rates, nor did it improve postoperative clinical symptoms. The routine use of an orthosis may not be necessary after single-level lumbar discectomy.

Soft Cervical Orthosis Use Does Not Improve Fusion Rates After One-Level and Two-Level Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion

OBJECTIVE

To determine if postoperative soft cervical orthosis use affects arthrodesis rates on a per-level or construct basis after 1-level and 2-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF).

METHODS

Electronic medical records were queried for 1-level and 2-level primary ACDF between 2016 and 2019 at a single academic center. Surgeons prescribed either a soft cervical orthosis or no orthosis. Pseudarthrosis rates were evaluated by dynamic cervical spine radiographs with arthrodesis defined by <1 mm of interspinous motion. Continuous and categorical data were compared using analysis of variance or χ2 tests. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to examine independent predictors of pseudarthrosis.

RESULTS

A total of 316 unique patients (504 instrumented levels) met the inclusion criteria. Eighty-four percent of patients were prescribed a soft cervical orthosis. Overall, arthrodesis occurred at 344 (80.9%) and 62 (78%) levels in patients with and without cervical orthosis, respectively. When evaluating patients placed in a cervical orthosis versus those who were not, there were no differences in pseudarthrosis or revision rates. Further, there were no differences in pseudarthrosis on a per-level basis. Further, cervical orthosis use was not an independent predictor of pseudarthrosis (odds ratio, 0.86; 95% confidence interval, 0.47-1.57; P =0.623) on multivariate analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

Postoperative placement of soft cervical orthoses after 1-level or 2-level ACDF was not associated with improved arthrodesis or reduced rate of revision surgery.

Neurosurgeons Relate Heterogeneous Practices Regarding Activity and Return to Work After Spine Surgery

OBJECTIVE

Given the paucity of relevant data, the Council of State Neurosurgical Societies Workforce Committee launched a survey of neurosurgeons to assess patterns in activity restriction recommendations following spine surgery; the ultimate goal was to optimize and potentially standardize these recommendations. The aim of this initial study was to determine current practices in activity restrictions and return to work guidelines following common spinal procedures.

METHODS

The survey included questions regarding general demographics and practice data, postoperative bracing/orthosis utilization, and guidelines for postoperative return to different levels of activity/types of work following specific spine surgery interventions. A spectrum of typical spine surgeries was assessed, including microdiscectomy, anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF), and lumbar fusion, both open and minimal invasive surgery (MIS) approaches.

RESULTS

There was significant interprocedure and intraprocedure variation in the neurosurgeons' recommendations for postoperative activity and return to work recommendations after various spinal surgery procedures. Comparisons of the different surgical procedures evaluated revealed significant differences in cervical collar use (more often used following ≥2-level ACDF than single-level ACDF; P < 0.001), return to both sedentary and light physical work (greater restriction with ≥2-level ACDF than with single-level ACDF; P < 0.001), and return to a light exercise regimen (sooner following MIS versus open lumbar fusion; P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

This survey demonstrated little consistency regarding return to work recommendations, general activity restrictions, and orthosis utilization following common spinal surgical procedures. Addressing this issue also has significant implications for the societal and personal costs of spine surgery.

Achieving Value in Spine Surgery: 10 Major Cost Contributors

STUDY DESIGN

Narrative Review.

OBJECTIVES

The increasing cost of healthcare overall and for spine surgery, coupled with the growing burden of spine-related disease and rising demand have necessitated a shift in practice standards with a new emphasis on value-based care. Despite multiple attempts to reconcile the discrepancy between national recommendations for appropriate use and the patterns of use employed in clinical practice, resources continue to be overused-often in the absence of any demonstrable clinical benefit. The following discussion illustrates 10 areas for further research and quality improvement.

METHODS

We present a narrative review of the literature regarding 10 features in spine surgery which are characterized by substantial disproportionate costs and minimal-if any-clear benefit. Discussion items were generated from a service-wide poll; topics mentioned with great frequency or emphasis were considered. Items are not listed in hierarchical order, nor is the list comprehensive.

RESULTS

We describe the cost and clinical data for the following 10 items: Over-referral, Over-imaging & Overdiagnosis; Advanced Imaging for Low Back Pain; Advanced imaging for C-Spine Clearance; Advanced Imaging for Other Spinal Trauma; Neuromonitoring for Cervical Spine; Neuromonitoring for Lumbar Spine/Single-Level Surgery; Bracing & Spinal Orthotics; Biologics; Robotic Assistance; Unnecessary perioperative testing.

CONCLUSIONS

In the pursuit of value in spine surgery we must define what quality is, and what costs we are willing to pay for each theoretical unit of quality. We illustrate 10 areas for future research and quality improvement initiatives, which are at present overpriced and underbeneficial.

Special Considerations to Improve Clinical Outcomes in Patients with Osteoporosis Undergoing Spine Surgery

BACKGROUND

Osteoporosis is a condition that is commonly encountered, with increasing diagnosis by the medical community with the aging population. Osteoporosis leaves patients susceptible to fragility fractures in the vertebrae and is also associated with degenerative changes, both of which may require intervention from a spine surgeon. The goal of this review is to concisely outline special nonoperative adjuncts, as well as preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative considerations of osteoporotic patients undergoing spine intervention.

METHODS

A literature analysis was completed for this narrative review. A database search of PubMed and Google Scholar was conducted using "osteoporosis" combined with "spine," "spine surgery," and "spinal fusion" without exclusion based on publication date. Articles were screened to exclude duplicate articles and screened for their full text and English language availability.

RESULTS

The database search yielded recent publications from which the narrative review was completed.

CONCLUSIONS

Preoperatively, screening is traditionally completed with dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DEXA). Pharmacological therapy modalities currently include teriparatide, raloxifene, denosumab, bisphosphonates, and calcitonin. In order to prevent operative complications associated with osteoporosis, surgeons have found success in increasing the diameter and the length of pedicle screws, limiting pedicle tapping, achieving bicortical or even tricortical purchase, augmenting with polymethyl methacrylate, using iliosacral stabilization, preventing positive sagittal balance, and using adequate fusion products when necessary. Postoperatively, it is important to implant a care plan that includes adequate pain control and necessary care, and to understand risks associated with falls may increase risk of postoperative fragility fractures as well as instrumentation displacement. At this time there are no recommendations in regard to bracing in the postoperative setting.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

This review article outlines the most current evidence-based medicine with regard to considerations in spine surgery of the osteoporotic patient, and aims to bring about new questions to be investigated in that paradigm.

Postoperative bracing practices after elective lumbar spine surgery: A questionnaire study of U.S. spine surgeons

Background

There is limited data available on the use of orthoses across varying elective spine surgeries. When previously studied in 2009, inconsistent lumbar postoperative bracing practices were reported. The present study aimed to provide a ten-year update regarding postoperative bracing practices after elective lumbar surgery among United States (U.S.) spine surgeons.

Methods

A questionnaire was distributed to attendees of the Lumbar Spine Research Society Annual Meeting (April 2019). The questionnaire collected demographic information, and asked surgeons to identify if they used orthoses postoperatively after ten elective lumbar surgeries. Information regarding type of brace, duration of use, and reason for bracing was also collected. Chi-square tests and one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) were used for comparisons.

Results

Seventy-three of 88 U.S. attending surgeons completed the questionnaire (response rate: 83%). The majority of respondents were orthopaedic surgery-trained (78%), fellowship-trained (84%), and academic surgeons (73%). The majority of respondents (60%) did not use orthoses after any lumbar surgery. Among the surgeons who braced, the overall bracing frequency was 26%. This rate was significantly lower than that reported in the literature ten years earlier (p<0.0001). Respondents tended to use orthoses most often after stand-alone lateral interbody fusions (43%) (p<0.0001). The average bracing frequency after lumbar fusions (34%) was higher than the average bracing frequency after non-fusion surgeries (16%) (p<0.0001). The most frequently utilized brace was an off the shelf lumbar sacral orthosis (66%), and most surgeons braced patients to improve pain (42%). Of surgeons who braced, most commonly did so for 2–4 months (57%).

Conclusion

Most surgeon respondents did not prescribe orthoses after varying elective lumbar surgeries, and the frequency overall was lower than a similar study conducted in 2009. There continues to be inconsistencies in postoperative bracing practices. In an era striving for evidence-based practices, this is an area needing more attention.

Orthosis in Thoracolumbar Fractures: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trial (RCT).

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to evaluate radiological and clinical outcomes of acute traumatic thoracolumbar fractures in skeletally mature patients treated with orthosis, versus no immobilization.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Orthosis is traditionally used in conservative treatment of thoracolumbar fractures. However, recent studies suggest no benefit, and a possible negative impact in recovery.

METHODS

Databases were searched from inception to June 2019. Studies were selected in two phases by two blinded reviewers; disagreements were solved by consensus. Inclusion criteria were: RCT; only patients with acute traumatic thoracolumbar fractures; primary conservative treatment; comparison between orthosis and no orthosis. Exclusion criteria were inclusion of nonacute fractures, patients with other significant known diseases and comparison of groups different than use of an orthosis. Two independent reviewers performed data extraction and quality assessment. Fixed-effects models were used upon no heterogeneity, and random-effects model in the remaining cases. A previous plan for extraction of radiological (kyphosis progression; loss of anterior height) and clinical (pain; disability; length of stay) outcomes was applied. PRISMA guidelines were followed.

RESULTS

Eight articles/five studies were included (267 participants). None reported significant differences in pain, kyphosis progression, and loss of anterior height. One reported a better ODI with orthosis at 12 but not at 24 weeks. No other study reported differences in disability. All authors concluded an equivalence between treatments.Meta-analysis showed a significant increase of 3.47days (95% confidence interval 1.35-5.60) in mean admission time in orthosis group. No differences were found in kyphosis at 6 and 12 months; kyphosis progression between 0 to 6 and 0 to 12 months; loss of anterior height 0 to 6 months; VAS for pain at 6 months; VAS change 0 to 6 months.

CONCLUSION

Orthosis seems to add no benefit in conservative treatment of acute thoracolumbar fractures. This should be considered in guidelines and reviews of health care policies.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

3.

The Utility of Cervical Spine Bracing As a Postoperative Adjunct to Multilevel Anterior Cervical Spine Surgery

Background

Use of cervical bracing/collar subsequent to anterior cervical spine discectomy and fusion (ACDF) is variable. Outcomes data regarding bracing after ACDF are limited. Here, we study the impact of bracing on short-term outcomes related to safety, quality of care, and direct costs in multilevel ACDF.

Methods

Retrospective cohort analyses of all consecutive patients undergoing multilevel ACDF with or without bracing from 2013 to 2017 was undertaken (n = 616). Patient demographics and comorbidities were analyzed. Tests of independence and logistic regressions were used to assess differences in length of stay (LOS), discharge disposition (home, assisted rehabilitation facility [ARF], or skilled nursing facility [SNF]), quality-adjusted life year (QALY), direct cost, readmission within 30 days, and emergency room (ER) visits within 30 days.

Results

Amongst the study population, 553 were braced and 63 were not braced. There was no difference in comorbidities (P > .05) such as obesity, smoking, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, hypertension, coronary artery disease, congestive heart failure, and problem list number. A significant difference in American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score was found, with more ASA 2 patients in the braced cohort and more ASA 3 patients in the unbraced cohort (P = .007). LOS was extended for the unbraced group (median 156.9 ± 211.4 versus 86.67 ± 130.6 h, P = .003), and ER visits within 30 days were 0.21 times less likely in the braced group (P = .006). There was no difference in readmission (P = .181), QALY gain (P = .968), and direct costs (P = .689).

Conclusion

Bracing following multilevel cervical fixation does not alter short-term postoperative course or reduce the risk for early adverse outcomes in a significant manner.

Two surgical strategies for treating multilevel cervical spondylotic myelopathy combined with kyphotic deformity

This study compared the surgical outcomes of two surgical methods for treating multilevel cervical spondylotic myelopathy (MCSM) combined with cervical kyphotic deformity (CKD): (1) the ELTA method consisted of expansive open-door laminoplasty (EOLP) followed by three-segment anterior cervical discectomy fusion (ACDF), and (2) the LAPI method consisted of long-segment ACDF followed by long-level posterior instrumented fusion (PIF). Surgical treatment of CKD combined with MCSM remains challenging. Surgical considerations should include adequate spinal cord decompression and restoration of satisfactory cervical sagittal alignment (CSA). In certain situations, a solid PIF structure is vital to prevent failure.We included 105 patients who underwent the aforementioned surgical methods for MCSM combined with CKD from January 2013 to December 2017. The minimum follow-up period was 1 year. Comparative analysis was performed to compare the two surgical strategies' preoperative and postoperative functional outcomes, including a visual analog scale for neck pain, neck disability index, the Japanese Orthopedic Association cervical myelopathy score, and the Nurick score, as well as the CSA radiographic outcomes, including C2-7 Cobb angle, C2-7 sagittal vertical axis, and C7 slope. The risk factors related to reduced improvement in functional status were analyzed.A total of 63 patients underwent ELTA and 42 patients underwent LAPI. Improvements in functional outcomes were considerable in both groups. The mean C2-7 Cobb angle was restored from 7.4° ± 2.1° kyphosis to 8.8° ± 4.7° lordosis in the ELTA group and from 15.3° ± 4.2° kyphosis to 15.8° ± 8.1° lordosis in the LAPI group. The maximal correction angle was 22.6° in the ELTA group and 42.6° in the LAPI group.Although changes in CSA seemed to be significantly correlated with improvements of functional status, the ELTA and LAPI methods were both effective for treating MCSM combined with CKD, when appropriately selected. The ELTA method was indicated for MCSM patients who had a low degree of CKD, whereas the LAPI method was indicated for MCSM patients who had poor function scores and a high degree of CKD.

Changes of balance control in individuals with lumbar degenerative spine disease after lumbar surgery: a longitudinal study

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Lumbar degenerative spine disease (DSD) with neurological symptoms is the most common indication requiring lumbar surgery when nonoperative treatment is not effective. Individuals with lumbar DSD have sensory, proprioception, and musculoskeletal system alterations, which may result in balance impairment. However, evidence regarding balance recovery in individuals with lumbar DSD after lumbar surgery is limited.

PURPOSE

To evaluate balance control, pain, and functional activities in individuals with lumbar DSD after lumbar surgery.

STUDY DESIGN/SETTING

A prospective study with a cross-sectional control group.

PATIENT SAMPLE

Seventy individuals with lumbar DSD (DSD group) and 30 age-matched healthy adults (control group) were recruited. Participants in the DSD group were diagnosed by a neurological surgeon and received lumbar surgery according to relevant imaging findings and neurological symptoms.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Clinical assessments, including a visual analogue scale (VAS), the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ), were performed in the DSD group only. Balance control was assessed in all participants using the root mean square (RMS) distance of the center of pressure (COP) in anteroposterior and mediolateral directions.

METHODS

All participants were instructed to stand in natural stance and Romberg stance with eyes open and eyes closed on a force platform for 35 seconds, respectively. The assessments were performed in the DSD group at four time points: preoperative phase (baseline), 3 months, 6 months, and 12 months postoperatively. In the age-matched healthy control group, only one assessment on the recruitment day was performed.

RESULTS

The VAS, ODI, and RMDQ scores of the DSD group significantly improved after lumbar surgery (p<.001). The RMS distance of COP in the DSD group significantly decreased after lumbar surgery (p<.017) compared with baseline in most of the testing conditions. However, the RMS distance of the COP in the DSD group after surgery was significantly greater than in the healthy control group (p<.05), especially 6 months and 12 months postoperatively.

CONCLUSIONS

Balance control, pain, and functional activities of individuals with lumbar DSD showed improvement after lumbar surgery. However, balance control in individuals with lumbar DSD was still less stable than in age-matched healthy adults from 6 to 12 months after surgery. Therefore, individuals with lumbar DSD require fall prevention programs after lumbar surgery, including balance assessments and postoperative balance training.

The Utility of Cervical Spine Bracing as a Postoperative Adjunct to Single-level Anterior Cervical Spine Surgery

Background Context:

Use of cervical bracing/collar subsequent to anterior cervical spine discectomy and fusion (ACDF) is variable. Outcomes data regarding bracing after ACDF are limited.

Purpose:

The purpose of the study is to study the impact of bracing on short-term outcomes related to safety, quality of care, and direct costs in single-level ACDF.

Study Design/Setting:

This retrospective cohort analysis of all consecutive patients (n = 578) undergoing single-level ACDF with or without bracing from 2013 to 2017 was undertaken.

Methods:

Patient demographics and comorbidities were analyzed. Tests of independence (Chi-square, Fisher's exact, and Cochran–Mantel–Haenszel test), Mann–Whitney–Wilcoxon tests, and logistic regressions were used to assess differences in length of stay (LOS), discharge disposition (home, assisted rehabilitation facility-assisted rehabilitation facility, or skilled nursing facility), quality-adjusted life year (QALY), surgical site infection (SSI), direct cost, readmission within 30 days, and emergency room (ER) visits within 30 days.

Results:

Among the study population, 511 were braced and 67 were not braced. There was no difference in graft type (P = 1.00) or comorbidities (P = 0.06–0.73) such as obesity (P = 0.504), smoking (0.103), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease hypertension (P = 0.543), coronary artery disease (P = 0.442), congestive heart failure (P = 0.207), and problem list number (P = 0.661). LOS was extended for the unbraced group (median 34.00 + 112.15 vs. 77.00 + 209.31 h, P < 0.001). There was no difference in readmission (P = 1.000), ER visits (P = 1.000), SSI (P = 1.000), QALY gain (P = 0.437), and direct costs (P = 0.732).

Conclusions:

Bracing following single-level cervical fixation does not alter short-term postoperative course or reduce the risk for early adverse outcomes in a significant manner. The absence of bracing is associated with increased LOS, but cost analyses show no difference in direct costs between the two treatment approaches. Further evaluation of long-term outcomes and fusion rates will be necessary before definitive recommendations regarding bracing utility following single-level ACDF.

Bracing after percutaneous vertebroplasty for thoracolumbar osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures was not effective

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of bracing after percutaneous vertebroplasty (PVP) for thoracolumbar osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures (OVCF).

METHODS

This is a retrospective study where we recruited 138 patients with single-level thoracolumbar OVCF who underwent PVP from January 2018 to March 2018 without bracing after PVP (Group A). The visual analog score (VAS) and vertebral body compression ratio (VCR) were recorded at preoperation, on the second day, at 2 weeks, 1 month, and 6 months after operation. Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) was recorded at preoperation, 2 weeks, 1 month, and 6 months after operation. Propensity score matching identified 138 historical patients (Group B) as controls, who used rigid brace for 3 weeks after the surgery, from January 2017 to December 2017 using six independent variables (preoperation): age, sex, VAS, ODI, bone mineral density, and body mass index. The indicators and complications were compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

Compared with preoperation, VAS and VCR were significantly improved (P<0.05) in both groups on the second day after operation. At 2 weeks, 1 month, and 6 months after PVP operation, ODI, VAS, and VCR were all significantly improved than at preoperation (P<0.05). There were no statistical differences between the two groups in VAS and VCR on the second day, at 1 month and 6 months after PVP (P<0.05). There were no significant differences between Groups A and B in ODI at 2 weeks and 6 months after operation (P<0.05) but ODI for Group B at 1 month after operation was significantly higher than Group A (P<0.05). Eleven cases in Group A and 13 cases in Group B had poor pain relief on the second day after operation, and there were no significant differences in VAS and ODI between the two subgroups at 2 weeks, 1 month, and 6 months after PVP. There were no significant differences in the collapse and refracture rates between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

In summary, in terms of quality of life and complications after operation, postoperative bracing did not result in improved outcomes. Presence or absence of bracing did not relieve postoperative residual pain. In contrast, bracing for 3 weeks after operation reduced the quality of life in the short term.