Nonoperative Treatment of Thoracic and Lumbar Spine Fractures:A Prospective Randomized Study of Different Treatment Options

Objectives: To evaluate and compare nonoperative treatment methods for traumatic thoracic and lumbar compression fractures and burst fractures.Design: Prospective randomized controlled trial with long-term follow-up.Setting: Two general hospitals in the Netherlands.Patients/Participants: Patients with a traumatic thoracic or lumbar spine fracture, without neurologic damage, with less than 50% loss of height of the anterior column and less than 30% reduction of the spinal canal were included.Intervention: Patients in the compression group were randomized to physical therapy and postural instructions, a brace for 6 weeks, or a Plaster of Paris cast for 6 or 12 weeks. Patients in the burst group received a brace or a Plaster of Paris cast, both for 12 weeks.Main Outcome Measurements: Follow-up examinations included radiographs, Visual Analogue Scores for toleration of treatment and persistent pain, and an Oswestry Disability Index at long-term follow-up.Results: There were 133 patients: 108 in the compression group and 25 in the burst group. For compression fractures, physical therapy and brace were considered the most tolerable. Brace therapy scored significantly better on the Visual Analogue Scores for residual pain and on the Oswestry Disability Index. None of the treatments had any significant effect on the residual deformity measurements. For burst fractures, no significant differences were found.Conclusions: Brace treatment with supplementary physical therapy is the treatment of choice for patients with compression fractures of the thoracic and lumbar spine. Furthermore, more than 20% of all patients had moderate or severe back pain at long-term follow-up.</p

The flying buttress construct for posterior spinopelvic fixation: a technical note

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Posterior fusion of the spine to the pelvis in paediatric and adult spinal deformity is still challenging. Especially assembling of the posterior rod construct to the iliac screw is considered technically difficult. A variety of spinopelvic fixation techniques have been developed. However, extreme bending of the longitudinal rods or the use of 90-degree lateral offset connectors proved to be difficult, because the angle between the rod and the iliac screw varies from patient to patient.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We adopted a new spinopelvic fixation system, in which iliac screws are side-to-side connected to the posterior thoracolumbar rod construct, independent of the angle between the rod and the iliac screw. Open angled parallel connectors are used to connect short iliac rods from the posterior rod construct to the iliac screws at both sides. The construct resembles in form and function an architectural Flying Buttress, or lateral support arches, used in Gothic cathedrals.</p> <p>Results and discussion</p> <p>Three different cases that illustrate the Flying Buttress construct for spinopelvic fixation are reported here with the clinical details, radiographic findings and surgical technique used.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The Flying Buttress construct may offer an alternative surgical option for spinopelvic fixation in circumstances wherein coronal or sagittal balance cannot be achieved, for example in cases with significant residual pelvic obliquity, or in revision spinal surgery for failed lumbosacral fusion.</p

Introduction to the "Scoliosis" Journal Brace Technology Thematic Series: increasing existing knowledge and promoting future developments

Bracing is the main non-surgical intervention in the treatment of idiopathic scoliosis during growth, in hyperkyphosis (and Scheuermann disease) and occasionally for spondylolisthesis; it can be used in adult scoliosis, in the elderly when pathological curves lead to a forward leaning posture or in adults after traumatic injuries. Bracing can be defined as the application of external corrective forces to the trunk; rigid supports or elastic bands can be used and braces can be custom-made or prefabricated. The state of research in the field of conservative treatment is insufficient and while it can be stated that there is some evidence to support bracing, we must also acknowledge that today we do not have a common and generally accepted knowledge base, and that instead, individual expertise still prevails, giving rise to different schools of thought on brace construction and principles of correction. The only way to improve the knowledge and understanding of brace type and brace function is to establish a single and comprehensive source of information about bracing. This is what the Scoliosis Journal is going to do through the "Brace Technology" Thematic Series, where technical papers coming from the different schools will be published

A systematic review of randomised controlled trials assessing effectiveness of prosthetic and orthotic interventions.

BACKGROUND: Assistive products are items which allow older people and people with disabilities to be able to live a healthy, productive and dignified life. It has been estimated that approximately 1.5% of the world's population need a prosthesis or orthosis. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to systematically identify and review the evidence from randomized controlled trials assessing effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of prosthetic and orthotic interventions. METHODS: Literature searches, completed in September 2015, were carried out in fourteen databases between years 1995 and 2015. The search results were independently screened by two reviewers. For the purpose of this manuscript, only randomized controlled trials which examined interventions using orthotic or prosthetic devices were selected for data extraction and synthesis. RESULTS: A total of 342 randomised controlled trials were identified (319 English language and 23 non-English language). Only 4 of these randomised controlled trials examined prosthetic interventions and the rest examined orthotic interventions. These orthotic interventions were categorised based on the medical conditions/injuries of the participants. From these studies, this review focused on the medical condition/injuries with the highest number of randomised controlled trials (osteoarthritis, fracture, stroke, carpal tunnel syndrome, plantar fasciitis, anterior cruciate ligament, diabetic foot, rheumatoid and juvenile idiopathic arthritis, ankle sprain, cerebral palsy, lateral epicondylitis and low back pain). The included articles were assessed for risk of bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. Details of the clinical population examined, the type of orthotic/prosthetic intervention, the comparator/s and the outcome measures were extracted. Effect sizes and odds ratios were calculated for all outcome measures, where possible. CONCLUSIONS: At present, for prosthetic and orthotic interventions, the scientific literature does not provide sufficient high quality research to allow strong conclusions on their effectiveness and cost-effectiveness