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
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2023 Jan 15;48(2):89-96.
doi: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000004424. Epub 2022 Jul 14.

Elastic Lumbar Support Versus Rigid Thoracolumbar Orthosis for Acute Pediatric Spondylolysis: A Prospective Controlled Study

Affiliations
Randomized Controlled Trial

Elastic Lumbar Support Versus Rigid Thoracolumbar Orthosis for Acute Pediatric Spondylolysis: A Prospective Controlled Study

Ella Virkki et al. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). .

Abstract

Study design: A prospective study on clinical, radiographic, and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) outcomes in children with acute spondylolysis treated with a rigid thoracolumbar orthosis or with an elastic lumbar support.

Objective: To compare outcomes of pediatric spondylosysis treated with a hard brace or an elastic lumbar support.

Summary of background data: The benefits of the use of a rigid orthosis in treatment of spondylolysis are not clear.

Materials and methods: Fifty-seven consecutive children with acute spondylolysis (mean age: 14.1 yr, range: 9-17 yr) were prospectively enrolled. Patients were treated with a rigid thoracolumbar orthosis (Boston brace) or with a low-profile, elastic lumbar support. First 14 patients were randomized the remaining 43 chose brace type themselves. Treatment period was four months. Treatment outcomes included bony union of the spondylolysis assessed with a computed tomography at four months and HRQoL using the Scoliosis Research Society-24 outcome questionnaire filled out before and after the treatment.

Results: Of the 57 patients, 54 completed the treatment protocol. Twenty-nine patients were treated using the Boston brace and 25 patients the elastic lumbar support. Bony union was obtained in 69.0% (20/29) of the Boston brace and in 60.0% (15/25) of the elastic lumbar support group patients. Difference in union rates was not significant (relative risk=1.14, 95% confidence interval: 0.44-2.98, P =0.785). There was no difference in the Scoliosis Research Society-24 total or domain scores at the end of follow-up between the treatment groups ( P >0.159 for all comparisons). In the whole cohort, the bony union did not predict better HRQoL in the end of the treatment ( P =0.869), although the pain domain improved significantly in the whole cohort ( P <0.001).

Conclusions: A rigid thoracolumbar orthosis did not provide any benefits over an elastic lumbar support in terms of bony union or HRQoL outcomes in children with acute spondylolysis.

Level of eviden: 2.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors report no conflicts of interest.

References

    1. Micheli L, Wood R. Back pain in young athletes. Significant differences from adults in causes and patterns. Arch Pediatr Adoles Med 1995;149:15–18.
    1. Sys J, Michielsen J, Bracke P, et al. Nonoperative treatment of active spondylolysis in elite athletes with normal x-ray findings: literature review and results of conservative treatment. Eur Spine J 2001;10:498–504.
    1. Sairyo K, Sakai T, Yasui N, et al. Conservative treatment for pediatric lumbar spondylolysis to achieve bone healing using a hard brace: what type and how long? Clinical article. J Neurosurg Spine 2012;16:610–614.
    1. Sakai T, Tezuka F, Yamashita K, et al. Conservative treatment for bony healing in pediatric lumbar spondylolysis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2017;42:E716–E720.
    1. Yamazaki K, Kota S, Oikawa D, et al. High defect stage, contralateral defects, and poor flexibility are negative predictive factors of bone union in pediatric and adolescent athletes with spondylolysis. J Med Invest 2018;65:126–130.

Publication types