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
. 2024 May 1;37(4):178-181.
doi: 10.1097/BSD.0000000000001624. Epub 2024 Apr 18.

Is Routine Use of External Spinal Orthoses Necessary After Operative Stabilization of Cervical Spine Injuries?

Derek Moody  1 , James Showery  1 , Ran Lador  1 , Isaac Hernandez  1 , Mark L Prasarn  2
Affiliations

Is Routine Use of External Spinal Orthoses Necessary After Operative Stabilization of Cervical Spine Injuries?

Derek Moody et al. Clin Spine Surg. .

Abstract

Study design: Retrospective Review.

Objective: The purpose of this study is to evaluate the efficacy of postoperative cervical orthoses to prevent fixation failure and loss of reduction after operative treatment of cervical spine fractures.

Summary of background data: While cervical orthoses are most times tolerated in trauma patients, it is not clear that postoperative bracing is effective at reducing the rate of fixation failure or nonunion in this patient population. Cervical collars may delay rehabilitation, increase the risk of dysphagia and aspiration, and can contribute to skin breakdown.

Methods: All patients who underwent operative stabilization for cervical spine injuries at a single institution between January 2015 and August 2019 were identified through the institutional Research Electronic Data Capture (REDcap) database. Patient data, including cervical spine injury, surgery, post-operative orthosis use, and secondary surgeries for loss of reduction or infection, were recorded for all patients meeting the inclusion criteria. The primary outcome was the loss of reduction or failure of fixation, requiring revision surgery. Statistical analysis was performed using Jamovi (Version 1.1) statistical software.

Results: In all, 201 patients meeting inclusion and exclusion criteria were identified within the study period. Overall, 133 (66.2%) patients were treated with a cervical orthosis postoperatively and 68 (33.8%) patients were allowed to mobilize as tolerated without a cervical orthosis. Fixation failure and loss of reduction occurred in 4 (1.99%) patients. Of these 4, three patients were treated with a cervical orthosis postoperatively. There was no significant difference in the risk of instrumentation failure between patients in the postoperative orthosis and no orthosis groups ( P =0.706).

Conclusion: The use of cervical orthoses after operative stabilization of cervical spine injuries remains controversial. There was no statistically significant difference in hardware failure or loss of fixation between patients treated in cervical orthoses postoperatively and those who were not.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

    1. Schreiber F. Cervical Collar. US Patent No. 1945;389:690.
    1. Hare GF. Cervical Collar. US Patent No. 1974;850:164.
    1. Bible JE, Biswas D, Whang PG, et al. Postoperative bracing after spine surgery for degenerative conditions: a questionnaire study. Spine J. 2009;9:309–316.
    1. Miller CP, Bible JE, Jegede KA, et al. Soft and rigid collars provide similar restriction in cervical range of motion during fifteen activities of daily living. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2010;35:1271–1278.
    1. Hasan S, Babrowicz J, Waheed MA, et al. “The utility of postoperative bracing on radiographic and clinical outcomes following cervical spine surgery: A systematic review. Glob Spine J. 2022;13:512–522.