Advertisement

European Spine Journal

, Volume 28, Issue 2, pp 442–449 | Cite as

Postoperative bracing after lumbar surgery: a survey amongst spinal surgeons in Belgium

  • Liedewij BogaertEmail author
  • Peter Van Wambeke
  • Tinne Thys
  • Thijs Willem Swinnen
  • Wim Dankaerts
  • Simon Brumagne
  • Lieven Moke
  • Koen Peers
  • Bart Depreitere
  • Lotte Janssens
Original Article

Abstract

Purpose

Bracing is frequently prescribed following lumbar surgery for degenerative conditions. However, previous studies failed to demonstrate the advantage of postoperative lumbar bracing in both short- and long-term outcome in terms of pain, quality of life and fusion rate. The purpose of this study was to assess the prescription patterns and rationale for postoperative bracing amongst spinal surgeons in Belgium.

Methods

A 16-item online survey was distributed by email to spinal surgeons affiliated to the Spine Society of Belgium (N = 252).

Results

A total of 105 surgeons (42%) completed the survey. The overall bracing frequency following lumbar surgery was 38%. A brace was more often prescribed following the fusion procedures (52%) than after the non-fusion procedures (21%) (p < 0.0001). The majority of surgeons (59%) considered bracing after at least one type of lumbar surgery. Orthopaedic surgeons (73%) reported a significantly higher rate of prescribing postoperative bracing compared to neurosurgeons (44%) (p = 0.003). Pain alleviation (67%) was the main goal for prescribing a postoperative brace. A total of 42% of the surgeons aimed to improve fusion rate by bracing after lumbar fusion procedures. A quasi-equal level of the scientific literature (29%), personal experience (35%) and teaching from peers (36%) was reported to contribute on the attitudes towards prescribing bracing.

Conclusions

Postoperative bracing was prescribed by Belgian spinal surgeons following more than one-third of lumbar procedures. This was underpinned by beliefs regarding pain alleviation and higher fusion rate. Interestingly, based on the scientific literature these beliefs have been demonstrated to be false.

Graphical abstract

These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.

Keywords

Orthosis Postoperative period Practice pattern Spine Low back pain 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors declare no conflict of interest in the study. This work was supported by the University Hospitals Leuven and KU Leuven. The funders have no conflict of interest in the study design, in the collection, analysis and interpretation of data, in the writing of the manuscript and in the decision to submit the manuscript for publication.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest

Supplementary material

586_2018_5837_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (1.2 mb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 1197 kb)
586_2018_5837_MOESM2_ESM.pptx (209 kb)
Supplementary material 2 (PPTX 208 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Deyo RA, Mirza SK (2006) Trends and variations in the use of spine surgery. Clin Orthop Relat Res 443:139–146.  https://doi.org/10.1097/01.blo.0000198726.62514.75 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Connolly PJ, Grob D (1998) Bracing of patients after fusion for degenerative problems of the lumbar spine—yes or no? Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 23:1426–1428CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bible JE, Biswas D, Whang PG, Simpson AK, Rechtine GR, Grauer JN (2009) Postoperative bracing after spine surgery for degenerative conditions: a questionnaire study. Spine J 9:309–316.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2008.06.453 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Soliman HAG, Barchi S, Parent S, Maurais G, Jodoin A, Mac-Thiong JM (2018) 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) 43:155–160.  https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000002292 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Johnsson R, Strömqvist B, Axelsson P, Selvik G (1992) Influence of spinal immobilization on consolidation of posterolateral lumbosacral fusion. A roentgen stereophotogrammetric and radiographic analysis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 17:16–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Axelsson P, Johnsson R, Strömqvist B (1992) Effect of lumbar orthosis on intervertebral mobility. A roentgen stereophotogrammetric analysis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 17:678–681CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Axelsson P, Johnsson R, Strömqvist B (1993) Lumbar orthosis with unilateral hip immobilization. Effect on intervertebral mobility determined by roentgen stereophotogrammetric analysis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 18:876–879CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Rohlmann A, Bergmann G, Graichen F, Neff G (1999) Braces do not reduce loads on internal spinal fixation devices. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) 14:97–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Yee AJ, Yoo JU, Marsolais EB, Carlson G, Poe-Kochert C, Bohlman HH, Emery SE (2008) Use of a postoperative lumbar corset after lumbar spinal arthrodesis for degenerative conditions of the spine. A prospective randomized trial. J Bone Joint Surg Am 90:2062–2068.  https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.G.01093 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dailey AT, Ghogawala Z, Choudhri TF, Watters WC, Resnick DK, Sharan A, Eck JC, Mummaneni PV, Wang JC, Groff MW, Dhall SS, Kaiser MG (2014) Guideline update for the performance of fusion procedures for degenerative disease of the lumbar spine. Part 14: brace therapy as an adjunct to or substitute for lumbar fusion. J Neurosurg Spine 21:91–101.  https://doi.org/10.3171/2014.4.SPINE14282 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Eysenbach G (2004) Improving the quality of web surveys: the checklist for reporting results of internet e-surveys (CHERRIES). J Med Internet Res 6:e34.  https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.6.3.e34 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, Pocock SJ, Gøtzsche PC, Vandenbroucke JP, Initiative S (2008) The strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. J Clin Epidemiol 61:344–349.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.11.008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Baker ADL (2014) A prospective, randomized study of lumbar fusion: preliminary results. In: Banaszkiewicz P, Kader D (eds) Classic papers in orthopaedics. Springer, London.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-5451-8_69
  14. 14.
    Fischgrund JS, Mackay M, Herkowitz HN, Brower R, Montgomery DM, Kurz LT (1997) 1997 Volvo Award winner in clinical studies. Degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis with spinal stenosis: a prospective, randomized study comparing decompressive laminectomy and arthrodesis with and without spinal instrumentation. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 22:2807–2812CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Archer KR, Wegener ST, Seebach C, Song Y, Skolasky RL, Thornton C, Khanna AJ, Riley LH III (2011) The effect of fear of movement beliefs on pain and disability after surgery for lumbar and cervical degenerative conditions. Spine 36:1554–1562CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Willems PC, Hoebink EA, van Royen BJ, et al (2017) Toegevoegde waarde van een postoperatief korset op het postoperatieve herstel. http://www.richtlijnendatabase.nl. Accessed at 7 April 2018
  17. 17.
    Vlaeyen JW (2015) Learning to predict and control harmful events: chronic pain and conditioning. Pain 156(Suppl 1):S86–93.  https://doi.org/10.1097/j.pain.0000000000000107 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Madera M, Brady J, Deily S, McGinty T, Moroz L, Singh D, Tipton G, Truumees E, Group ftSSRS (2017) The role of physical therapy and rehabilitation after lumbar fusion surgery for degenerative disease: a systematic review. J Neurosurg Spine 26:694–704.  https://doi.org/10.3171/2016.10.SPINE16627 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Nicholls JL, Azam MA, Burns LC, Englesakis M, Sutherland AM, Weinrib AZ, Katz J, Clarke H (2018) Psychological treatments for the management of postsurgical pain: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Patient related outcome measures 9:49CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Colla CH, Mainor AJ, Hargreaves C, Sequist T, Morden N (2017) Interventions aimed at reducing use of low-value health services: a systematic review. Med Care Res Rev 74:507–550.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1077558716656970 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Cammisa C, Partridge G, Ardans C, Buehrer K, Chapman B, Beckman H (2011) Engaging physicians in change: results of a safety net quality improvement program to reduce overuse. Am J Med Qual 26:26–33.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1062860610373380 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Mafi JN, Parchman M (2018) Low-value care: an intractable global problem with no quick fix. BMJ Qual Saf 27:333–336.  https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2017-007477 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Van Erp RM, Jelsma J, Huijnen IP, Lundberg M, Willems PC, Smeets RJ (2018) Spinal surgeons’ opinions on pre-and postoperative rehabilitation in patients undergoing lumbar spinal fusion surgery: a survey-based study in the Netherlands and Sweden. Spine 43:713–719CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Division of Physical Medicine and RehabilitationUniversity Hospitals LeuvenLeuvenBelgium
  2. 2.Division of RheumatologyUniversity Hospitals LeuvenLeuvenBelgium
  3. 3.KU Leuven - Department of Rehabilitation SciencesKU LeuvenLeuvenBelgium
  4. 4.Skeletal Biology and Engineering Research Center, Department of Development and RegenerationKU LeuvenLeuvenBelgium
  5. 5.Institute for Orthopaedic Research and Training (IORT), Department of Development and RegenerationKU LeuvenLeuvenBelgium
  6. 6.Division of OrthopaedicsUniversity Hospitals LeuvenLeuvenBelgium
  7. 7.Division of NeurosurgeryUniversity Hospitals LeuvenLeuvenBelgium
  8. 8.Reval Rehabilitation Research CenterHasselt UniversityDiepenbeekBelgium

Personalised recommendations