What Type of Orthosis is Optimal for Conservative Treatment of Lumbar Spondylolysis?: A Biomechanical Analysis.
conservative treatment
lumbar spondylolysis
orthosis
stress fracture
Journal
Spine surgery and related research
ISSN: 2432-261X
Titre abrégé: Spine Surg Relat Res
Pays: Japan
ID NLM: 101718059
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2020
2020
Historique:
received:
10
03
2019
accepted:
16
08
2019
entrez:
11
2
2020
pubmed:
11
2
2020
medline:
11
2
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
To analyze the extent to which various types of orthoses can restrict motion of the lumbar spine and provide basic evidence regarding the optimal orthosis for conservative treatment of lumbar spondylolysis (LS), particularly. Although several orthoses have been developed and applied for LS with better outcomes for bony healing, basic data regarding which is optimal are still lacking. Ten healthy voluntary participants were included in this study. Lumbar spine range of motion (ROM) was analyzed using a three-dimensional motion capture system (NEXUS 2.2, Vicon Motion Systems Ltd., UK) under five conditions wearing no orthosis (NB) and four types of lumbar-sacral orthoses (LSO): custom-made hard LSO (HO), soft LSO supported by four aluminum stays and a custom-molded back cast-panel named "Return to Sports" braces (RS), custom-made soft LSO known as Damen type elasticity corset (DC), and off-the-shelf soft LSO. HO showed the highest restriction of motion in all directions than the others. Especially, ROM of rotation and side bending were reduced to 58.3% and 63.6% compared with NB, respectively. The other three LSOs showed significantly higher restriction in extension, rotation, and side bending than NB. In flexion and side bending, DC showed significantly higher restriction than NB. HO showed high restriction in all directions. RS showed higher restriction in extension than NB and less restriction in flexion and side bending than other custom-made LSOs. DC was the only soft LSO showing higher restriction than NB in flexion.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32039301
doi: 10.22603/ssrr.2019-0018
pmc: PMC7002065
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
74-80Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2020 by The Japanese Society for Spine Surgery and Related Research.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Conflicts of Interest: Y. Fujimoto is the representative director of Fujimoto Prosthesis and Orthosis Supply Co. Ltd. All other authors confirm that there are no conflicts of interest with people or organizations that could bias the nature of this report.
Références
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2006 Feb 1;31(3):E66-70
pubmed: 16449890
Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2011 Nov;131(11):1485-9
pubmed: 21671077
J Orthop Sci. 2010 May;15(3):281-8
pubmed: 20559793
J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2009 Feb;91(2):206-9
pubmed: 19190055
Eur Spine J. 2001 Dec;10(6):498-504
pubmed: 11806390
Am J Sports Med. 2010 Apr;38(4):791-6
pubmed: 20051500
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2009 Oct 1;34(21):2346-50
pubmed: 19934813
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1962 Apr;44-A:539-60
pubmed: 14040287
J Pediatr Orthop B. 2017 Jul;26(4):388-392
pubmed: 26945344
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2017 Jun 15;42(12):E716-E720
pubmed: 27755499
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1975 Jan;57(1):17-22
pubmed: 1123367
J Neurosurg Spine. 2012 Jun;16(6):610-4
pubmed: 22519929
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2006 Jan 15;31(2):206-11
pubmed: 16418642
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1984 Jun;66(5):699-707
pubmed: 6373773
J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2010 Aug;92(8):1123-7
pubmed: 20675758
Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol. 2014 Jul;24 Suppl 1:S239-43
pubmed: 24728780