Efficacy of Thoracolumbar Bracing in Spinal Immobilization : Precise Assessment of Gross, Intersegmental, and Segmental Spinal Motion Restriction by a 3D Kinematic System
Version
Published
Date Issued
2018
Author(s)
Langenbacher, Gernot
Hirschmüller, Anja
Patermann, Stefanie
Strohm, Peter
Südkamp, Norbert P.
Herget, Georg W.
Type
Article
Language
English
Abstract
Background
Various diseases of the spine are treated by immobilization via orthoses, although detailed evidence on the efficiency of orthotic bracing remains elusive. The present study sought to investigate the impact of 3 different orthoses on spinal immobilization using 3-dimensional (3D) kinematic measurements.
Methods
Twelve healthy volunteers performed different motion tasks, including trunk flexion/extension and bilateral trunk bending. Movements were performed under 4 different conditions: 1) without orthosis, 2) while wearing a 3-point hyperextension brace (HB), 3) while wearing a custom-made semirigid orthosis (SO), and 4) while wearing a custom-made rigid orthosis (RO). Spinal motion was analyzed using a 3D optical motion capture system assessing regional, intersegmental, and segmental range of motion (ROM).
Results
Assessment of spinal motion was successfully accomplished in all subjects. Overall, orthoses significantly reduced spinal motion compared with no bracing. RO caused the greatest restriction of regional, intersegmental, and segmental spinal motion among all orthoses. For flexion/extension, the mean percentage decreases between T3 and L5 in full active ROM with HB, SO, and RO compared with no orthosis were 38%/30%, 48%/47%, and 51%/55%, respectively (P ≤ 0.05). Lateral bending was impaired by 28%, 44%, and 70%, respectively (P ≤ 0.05). Assessment of lateral bending revealed greater immobilization by SO and RO compared with HB (P ≤ 0.05).
Conclusions
The present 3D kinematic system allows for precise assessment of spinal motion. Custom-made orthoses cause superior restriction on gross spinal motion compared “off-the-shelf” orthoses. If orthotic bracing is indicated, design, comfort, and patient compliance need to be carefully considered to guarantee successful therapy.
Key words
Bracing
Degeneration
Metastasis
Orthosis
Spine
Trauma
Abbreviations and Acronyms
3D3-dimensional
CAD/CAMComputer-aided design/manufacturing
HBHyperextension brace
LSOLumbosacral orthosis
OTSOff the shelf
RORigid orthosis
ROMRange of motion
SOSemirigid orthosis
TLSOThoracolumbar sacral orthosis
Various diseases of the spine are treated by immobilization via orthoses, although detailed evidence on the efficiency of orthotic bracing remains elusive. The present study sought to investigate the impact of 3 different orthoses on spinal immobilization using 3-dimensional (3D) kinematic measurements.
Methods
Twelve healthy volunteers performed different motion tasks, including trunk flexion/extension and bilateral trunk bending. Movements were performed under 4 different conditions: 1) without orthosis, 2) while wearing a 3-point hyperextension brace (HB), 3) while wearing a custom-made semirigid orthosis (SO), and 4) while wearing a custom-made rigid orthosis (RO). Spinal motion was analyzed using a 3D optical motion capture system assessing regional, intersegmental, and segmental range of motion (ROM).
Results
Assessment of spinal motion was successfully accomplished in all subjects. Overall, orthoses significantly reduced spinal motion compared with no bracing. RO caused the greatest restriction of regional, intersegmental, and segmental spinal motion among all orthoses. For flexion/extension, the mean percentage decreases between T3 and L5 in full active ROM with HB, SO, and RO compared with no orthosis were 38%/30%, 48%/47%, and 51%/55%, respectively (P ≤ 0.05). Lateral bending was impaired by 28%, 44%, and 70%, respectively (P ≤ 0.05). Assessment of lateral bending revealed greater immobilization by SO and RO compared with HB (P ≤ 0.05).
Conclusions
The present 3D kinematic system allows for precise assessment of spinal motion. Custom-made orthoses cause superior restriction on gross spinal motion compared “off-the-shelf” orthoses. If orthotic bracing is indicated, design, comfort, and patient compliance need to be carefully considered to guarantee successful therapy.
Key words
Bracing
Degeneration
Metastasis
Orthosis
Spine
Trauma
Abbreviations and Acronyms
3D3-dimensional
CAD/CAMComputer-aided design/manufacturing
HBHyperextension brace
LSOLumbosacral orthosis
OTSOff the shelf
RORigid orthosis
ROMRange of motion
SOSemirigid orthosis
TLSOThoracolumbar sacral orthosis
Publisher DOI
Journal
World Neurosurgery
ISSN
2590-1397
Volume
116
Publisher
Elsevier
Submitter
ServiceAccount
Citation apa
Langenbacher, G., Hirschmüller, A., Patermann, S., Eichelberger, P., Strohm, P., Baur, H., Südkamp, N. P., & Herget, G. W. (2018). Efficacy of Thoracolumbar Bracing in Spinal Immobilization : Precise Assessment of Gross, Intersegmental, and Segmental Spinal Motion Restriction by a 3D Kinematic System. In World Neurosurgery (Vol. 116). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.24451/arbor.6751
File(s)![Thumbnail Image]()
Loading...
restricted
Name
Efficacy of Thoracolumbar Bracing in Spinal Immobilization.pdf
License
Publisher
Version
published
Size
1.6 MB
Format
Adobe PDF
Checksum (MD5)
6289e5261bbf31002a8cde0c32e6265c
