Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2021 Feb;45(1):24-32.
doi: 10.5535/arm.20158. Epub 2021 Feb 9.

Comparison of the Effectiveness of Three Lumbosacral Orthoses on Early Spine Surgery Patients: A Prospective Cohort Study

Soo Woong Jang  1 , Hee Seung Yang  1 , Young Bae Kim  2 , Joo Chul Yang  3 , Kyu Bok Kang  2 , Tae Wan Kim  3 , Kwan Ho Park  3 , Kyung Soo Jeon  1 , Hee Dong Shin  1 , Ye Eun Kim  3 , Han Na Cho  2 , Yun Kyung Lee  1 , Young Lee  4 , Seul Bin Na Lee  4 , Dong Young Ahn  5 , Woo Sob Sim  5 , Min Jo  5 , Gyu Jik Jo  5 , Dong Bum Park  5 , Gwan Su Park  5
Affiliations

Comparison of the Effectiveness of Three Lumbosacral Orthoses on Early Spine Surgery Patients: A Prospective Cohort Study

Soo Woong Jang et al. Ann Rehabil Med. 2021 Feb.

Abstract

Objective: To compare the convenience and effectiveness of the existing lumbosacral orthoses (LSO) (classic LSO and Cybertech) and a newly developed LSO (V-LSO) by analyzing postoperative data.

Methods: This prospective cohort study was performed from May 2019 to November 2019 and enrolled and analyzed 88 patients with degenerative lumbar spine disease scheduled for elective lumbar surgery. Three types of LSO that were provided according to the time of patient registration were applied for 6 weeks. Patients were randomized into the classic LSO group (n=31), Cybertech group (n=26), and V-LSO group (n=31). All patients were assessed using the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) preoperatively and underwent plain lumbar radiography (anteroposterior and lateral views) 10 days postoperatively. Lumbar lordosis (LS angle) and frontal imbalance were measured with and without LSO. At the sixth postoperative week, a follow-up assessment with the ODI and orthosis questionnaire was conducted.

Results: No significant differences were found among the three groups in terms of the LS angle, frontal imbalance, ODI, and orthosis questionnaire results. When the change in the LS angle and frontal imbalance toward the reference value was defined as a positive change with and without LSO, the rate of positive change was significantly different in the V-LSO group (LS angle: 41.94% vs. 61.54% vs. 83.87%; p=0.003).

Conclusion: The newly developed LSO showed no difference regarding its effectiveness and compliance when compared with the existing LSO, but it was more effective in correcting lumbar lordosis.

Keywords: Braces; Lordosis; Postoperative case; Spine; Survey and questionnaire.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.

Figures

Fig. 1.
Fig. 1.
Flowchart of the study. LSO, lumbosacral orthoses; V-LSO, a newly developed LSO; ODI, Oswestry Disability Index.
Fig. 2.
Fig. 2.
The three types of lumbosacral orthoses (LSO): (A) classic lumbosacral corset, (B) Cybertech spine brace, and (C) a newly developed LSO (V-LSO).
Fig. 3.
Fig. 3.
The three types of lumbosacral orthoses (LSO) braces: (A) classic LSO, (B) Cybertech, and (C) a newly developed LSO (V-LSO). Each brace is basically attached to each other by Velcro corresponding to the red arrow, and it is recommended to be used in a combined form.
Fig. 4.
Fig. 4.
Plain lumbar radiographs of lateral views (A, B) and anteroposterior views (C, D) after 10 days of surgery with and without LSO. The LS angle and frontal imbalance were compared using radiograph data.
Fig. 5.
Fig. 5.
The orthosis questionnaire consists of 15 questions, including whether the patient is comfortable, whether the orthosis interfered with movement, and whether breathing is uncomfortable.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Soliman HA, Barchi S, Parent S, Maurais G, Jodoin A, Mac-Thiong JM. Early impact of postoperative bracing on pain and quality of life after posterior instrumented fusion for lumbar degenerative conditions: a randomized trial. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2018;43:155–60. - PubMed
    1. Machado GC, Ferreira PH, Yoo RI, Harris IA, Pinheiro MB, Koes BW, et al. Surgical options for lumbar spinal stenosis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016;11:CD012421. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Connolly PJ, Grob D. Bracing of patients after fusion for degenerative problems of the lumbar spine: yes or no? Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1998;23:1426–8. - PubMed
    1. Bogaert L, Van Wambeke P, Thys T, Swinnen TW, Dankaerts W, Brumagne S, et al. Postoperative bracing after lumbar surgery: a survey amongst spinal surgeons in Belgium. Eur Spine J. 2019;28:442–9. - PubMed
    1. Bible JE, Biswas D, Whang PG, Simpson AK, Rechtine GR, Grauer JN. Postoperative bracing after spine surgery for degenerative conditions: a questionnaire study. Spine J. 2009;9:309–16. - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources