Impact of Postoperative Bracing Following Spinal Fusion for Degenerative Lumbar Conditions: An Updated Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

IF 1.7 Q2 SURGERY International Journal of Spine Surgery Pub Date : 2024-11-08 DOI:10.14444/8598
An-Ping Feng, Shang-Feng Yu, Ming-Tao Zhu, Li-Ru He, Guang-Xun Lin
{"title":"Impact of Postoperative Bracing Following Spinal Fusion for Degenerative Lumbar Conditions: An Updated Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.","authors":"An-Ping Feng, Shang-Feng Yu, Ming-Tao Zhu, Li-Ru He, Guang-Xun Lin","doi":"10.14444/8598","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>There is a lack of consensus on the use of postoperative bracing for lumbar degenerative conditions. Spine surgeons typically determine whether to apply postoperative braces based primarily on clinical experience rather than robust, evidence-based medical data. Thus, the present study sought to assess the impact of postoperative bracing on clinical outcomes, complications, and fusion rates following lumbar fusion surgery in patients with degenerative spinal conditions.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Only randomized controlled studies published between January 1990 and 20 October 2023 were included in this meta-analysis. The primary outcome measures consisted of pre- and postoperative assessments of the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and visual analog scale (VAS) scores. Improvements in VAS and ODI scores were analyzed in the early postoperative period (1 month after operation) and at final follow-up, respectively. The analysis also encompassed fusion rates and complications.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Five studies with 362 patients were included in the present meta-analysis. In the early postoperative period, the brace group showed a relatively better improvement in ODI scores compared with the no-brace group (19.47 vs 18.18), although this difference was not statistically significant (<i>P</i> = 0.34). Similarly, during the late postoperative period, the brace group demonstrated a slightly greater improvement in VAS scores in comparison to the no-brace group (4.05 vs 3.84), but this difference did not reach statistical significance (<i>P</i> = 0.30). The complication rate was relatively lower in the brace group compared with the no-brace group (14.9% vs 17.4%), although there was no statistical difference between the 2 groups (<i>P</i> = 0.83). Importantly, there were no substantial differences in fusion rates between patients with or without braces.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The present meta-analysis revealed that the implementation of a brace following lumbar fusion surgery did not yield substantial differences in terms of postoperative pain relief, functional recovery, complication rates, or fusion rates when compared with cases where no brace was employed.</p><p><strong>Clinical relevance: </strong>This meta-analysis provides valuable insights into the clinical impact of postoperative bracing following lumbar fusion surgery for degenerative spinal conditions.</p><p><strong>Level of evidence: 1: </strong></p>","PeriodicalId":38486,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Spine Surgery","volume":" ","pages":"540-550"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Spine Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.14444/8598","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: There is a lack of consensus on the use of postoperative bracing for lumbar degenerative conditions. Spine surgeons typically determine whether to apply postoperative braces based primarily on clinical experience rather than robust, evidence-based medical data. Thus, the present study sought to assess the impact of postoperative bracing on clinical outcomes, complications, and fusion rates following lumbar fusion surgery in patients with degenerative spinal conditions.

Methods: Only randomized controlled studies published between January 1990 and 20 October 2023 were included in this meta-analysis. The primary outcome measures consisted of pre- and postoperative assessments of the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and visual analog scale (VAS) scores. Improvements in VAS and ODI scores were analyzed in the early postoperative period (1 month after operation) and at final follow-up, respectively. The analysis also encompassed fusion rates and complications.

Results: Five studies with 362 patients were included in the present meta-analysis. In the early postoperative period, the brace group showed a relatively better improvement in ODI scores compared with the no-brace group (19.47 vs 18.18), although this difference was not statistically significant (P = 0.34). Similarly, during the late postoperative period, the brace group demonstrated a slightly greater improvement in VAS scores in comparison to the no-brace group (4.05 vs 3.84), but this difference did not reach statistical significance (P = 0.30). The complication rate was relatively lower in the brace group compared with the no-brace group (14.9% vs 17.4%), although there was no statistical difference between the 2 groups (P = 0.83). Importantly, there were no substantial differences in fusion rates between patients with or without braces.

Conclusion: The present meta-analysis revealed that the implementation of a brace following lumbar fusion surgery did not yield substantial differences in terms of postoperative pain relief, functional recovery, complication rates, or fusion rates when compared with cases where no brace was employed.

Clinical relevance: This meta-analysis provides valuable insights into the clinical impact of postoperative bracing following lumbar fusion surgery for degenerative spinal conditions.

Level of evidence: 1:

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
腰椎退行性病变脊柱融合术后支撑的影响:随机对照试验的最新元分析。
背景:对于腰椎退行性病变术后支具的使用缺乏共识。脊柱外科医生通常主要根据临床经验而非可靠的循证医学数据来决定是否使用术后支撑。因此,本研究试图评估术后支撑对脊柱退行性病变患者腰椎融合术后的临床效果、并发症和融合率的影响:本荟萃分析仅纳入 1990 年 1 月至 2023 年 10 月 20 日期间发表的随机对照研究。主要结果指标包括术前和术后的 Oswestry 失能指数(ODI)和视觉模拟量表(VAS)评分。VAS和ODI评分的改善情况分别在术后早期(术后1个月)和最终随访时进行分析。分析还包括融合率和并发症:本荟萃分析共纳入了五项研究,362 名患者。在术后早期,背架组与无背架组相比,ODI评分的改善程度相对较好(19.47 vs 18.18),但差异无统计学意义(P = 0.34)。同样,在术后晚期,与无背架组相比,有背架组的 VAS 评分改善幅度略大(4.05 vs 3.84),但这一差异没有统计学意义(P = 0.30)。支架组的并发症发生率相对低于无支架组(14.9% vs 17.4%),但两组间无统计学差异(P = 0.83)。重要的是,带或不带牙套患者的融合率没有实质性差异:本荟萃分析显示,腰椎融合术后使用支具与不使用支具的病例相比,在术后疼痛缓解、功能恢复、并发症发生率或融合率方面没有实质性差异:这项荟萃分析就腰椎退行性病变融合手术后使用术后支具的临床影响提供了有价值的见解:1:
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
162
期刊介绍: The International Journal of Spine Surgery is the official scientific journal of ISASS, the International Intradiscal Therapy Society, the Pittsburgh Spine Summit, and the Büttner-Janz Spinefoundation, and is an official partner of the Southern Neurosurgical Society. The goal of the International Journal of Spine Surgery is to promote and disseminate online the most up-to-date scientific and clinical research into innovations in motion preservation and new spinal surgery technology, including basic science, biologics, and tissue engineering. The Journal is dedicated to educating spine surgeons worldwide by reporting on the scientific basis, indications, surgical techniques, complications, outcomes, and follow-up data for promising spinal procedures.
期刊最新文献
Editorial: Embracing Rasch Analysis for Enhanced Spine Surgery Outcomes-The Outsider's Viewpoint. Editors' Introduction: High-Value Endoscopic Techniques: Integrating Surgeon Skill and Experience in Spine Surgery With Rasch Analysis. Invited Commentary: Rasch Analysis and High-Value Spinal Endoscopy. Letter to the Editor: Articles and Accompanying Editorials on Rasch Analysis of High-Value Endoscopic Surgeries-A Message From the ISASS Co-President. Letter to the Editor: Hierarchy of Evidence.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1