Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Bracing of Spinal Fusions

  • Chapter
Spinal Fusion

  • 259 Accesses

Abstract

The choice of the postoperative orthosis has always reflected the surgeon’s perceptions of the strengths and limitations of the surgical construct. Before the development of instrumentation systems, early spinal surgeons focused on creating a surgical procedure that would consistently result in a fusion. They worked out surgical techniques that modified the biology of the surgical site to achieve their desired ends. These surgeons required an orthosis that would not only obtain the desired spinal alignment but would maintain it while fusion took place.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Moe JH. A critical analysis of method of fusion for scoliosis: an evaluation in two hundred and sixty-six patients. J Bone Joint Surg 1958;40A:529.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Risser JC, Norquist DM. A followup study of the treatment of scoliosis. J Bone Joint Surg 1958;40A:555.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Risser JC. Scoliosis past and present. J Bone Joint Surg 1964;46A:167.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Allen BL, Jr. Segmental instrumentation for difficult spine deformities. Orthop Trans 1979;3:4.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Allen BL, Jr, Ferguson RL. The operative treatment of myelomeningocele spinal deformity. Orthop Clin North Am 1979;10:845.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Allen BL, Jr, Ferguson RL. Segmental instrumentation. A useful adjunct in the treatment of difficult spine deformities. Orthop Trans 1981;5:191.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Allen BL, Jr, Ferguson RL. L-rod instrumentation for scoliosis in cerebral palsy. J Pediatr Orthop 1982;2:S7.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Allen BL, Jr, Ferguson RL. The Galveston technique of pelvic fixation for use with L-rod instrumentation. Proceedings of Scoliosis Research Society, 1983.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Ferguson RL, Allen BL, Jr. The evolution of segmental spinal instrumentation in the treatment of unstable thoracolumbar spine fractures. Proceedings of Scoliosis Research Society, 1982.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Luque ER. Paralytic scoliosis in growing children. Clin Orthop 1982;163:202.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Luque ER, Cardoso A. Treatment of scoliosis without arthrodesis or external support. Preliminary report. Orthop Trans 1977;1:37.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Luque ER. Segmental spinal instrumentation for correction of scoliosis. Clin Orthop 1982;163:192.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Nakano N. Segmental spinal instrumentation in adult patients with spinal deformity and spondylolisthesis. Proceedings of Scoliosis Research Society, 1982.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Renshaw TS. Spinal fusion with segmental instrumentation. Contemporary Orthop 1982;4:413.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Taddonio RF. Segmental spinal instrumentation in the management of neuromuscular spinal deformity. Spine 1982;7:305.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Taddonio RF, Weller K, Appel M. A comparison of patients with idiopathic scoliosis managed with and without postoperative immobilization following segmental spinal instrumentation with Luque rods: a preliminary report. Orthop Trans 1984;8:172.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Guadagni J, Drummond D, Breed A. Improved postoperative course following modified segmental instrumentation and posterior spinal fusion for idiopathic scoliosis. J Pediatr Orthop 1984;4:405.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Broadstone P, Leatherman KB. Consider postoperative immobilization of double L-rod. Segmental spinal instrumentation. Orthop Trans 1984;8:171.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Herndon WA, Sullivan A, Yngve DA, Gross RH, Dreher G. Segmental spinal instrumentation with sublaminar wires: a critical appraisal. J Bone Joint Surg 1987;69A:851.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Bonnet CA, Brown JC, Dietrich T. Post-operative immobilization with the Milwaukee brace after spinal fusion with Harrington rod instrumentation. Orthop Rev 1976;5:39.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Erwin WD, Dickson JH, Harrington PR. The postoperative management of scoliosis patients treated with Harrington rod instrumentation and fusion. J Bone Joint Surg 1976;58A:479.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Kahn A, III, Snyder MA. Cast versus brace immobilization in spinal fusion. Proceedings of Scoliosis Research Society, 1982.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Lehner JT, Lorber C, Haines W, Horwitz M. Immediate postoperative orthotic measurements of copolymer brace of postoperative care after spinal fusion. Proceedings of Scoliosis Research Society, 1982.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Roberts RS, Price CT, Riddick MF. Use of a bivalved polypropylene orthosis in the postoperative management of idiopathic scoliosis. Clin Orthop Rel Res 1984;185:25.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Tolo V, Gillespie R. The use of shortened periods of postoperative immobilization in the surgical treatment of idiopathic scoliosis. J Bone Joint Surg 1981;63A:1137.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Vasquez-Vela SG, Vasquez-Vela SA. A comparison of postoperative casting versus bracing following Harrington rod instrumentation and fusion for idiopathic scoliosis. Proceedings of Scoliosis Research Society, 1983.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Whitecloud TS, Mitchell O, Taylor J. Postoperative management of scoliosis in TLS orthosis. Proceedings of Scoliosis Research Society, 1982.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Johnson RM, Owen JR, Hart DL, Callahan RA. Cervical orthoses: a guide to their selection and use. Clin Orthop Rel Res 1981;154:34.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Johnson RM, Hart DL, Simmons EF, Romsby GR, Southwick WO. Cervical orthoses, a study comparing their effectiveness in restricting cervical motion in normal subjects. J Bone Joint Surg 1977;59A:332.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Whitehill R, Richman JA, Glaser JA. Failure of immobilization of the cervical spine by the halo vest. A report of five cases. J Bone Joint Surg 1986;68A:326.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Lantz SA, Schultz AB. Lumbar spine orthosis gearing I. Restriction of gross body motions. Spine 1986;11:834.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Fidler MW, Plasmans CMT. The effect of four types of support in the segmental mobility of the lumbosacral spine. J Bone Joint Surg 1983;65A:943.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Samuelson WO, Simmons EH. Biological factors affecting success in adult spinal fusion. Proceedings of Scoliosis Research Society, 1987.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Johnston CE, II, Ashmon RB, Sjerman MC. Mechanical consequences of rod contouring and residual scoliosis in sublaminar pelvis segmental spinal instrumentation. Orthop Trans 1986; 10:5.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Johnston CE, II. Mechanical consequences of rod contouring and residual scoliosis in sublaminar segmental instrumentation. J Orthop Res 1987;5:206.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Bunch WH, Chapman RG. Patient preferences in scoliosis surgery. J Bone Joint Surg 1985;67A:794.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Cool TA. Cyclic torsional testing with force motion analysis of segmental spinal instrumentation and Harrington rod instrumentation. Proceedings of Scoliosis Research Society, 1985.

    Google Scholar 

  38. McAfee P, Werner FW, Glisson RR. A biomechanical analysis of spinal instrumentation systems in thoracolumbar fractures: comparison of traditional Harrington distraction instrumentation with segmental spinal instrumentation. Spine 1985;10:214.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Mino VE. Torsional loading of Harrington distraction rod instrumentation compared to segmental sublaminar and spine process wiring. Proceedings of Scoliosis Research Society, 1984.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors
  1. Victoria M. Dvonch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Wilton H. Bunch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Jefferson Medical College of Thomas Jefferson University, 19107, Philadelphia, PA, USA

    Jerome M. Cotler M.D. (Professor and Vice Chairman) (Professor and Vice Chairman)

  2. Division of Orthopaedic Surgery, The University of Texas Medical School at Houston, Houston, TX, 77030, USA

    Howard B. Cotler M.D. (Assistant Professor of Surgery) (Assistant Professor of Surgery)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1990 Springer-Verlag New York Inc.

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Dvonch, V.M., Bunch, W.H. (1990). Bracing of Spinal Fusions. In: Cotler, J.M., Cotler, H.B. (eds) Spinal Fusion. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4612-3272-8_16

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4612-3272-8_16

  • Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-4612-7944-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4612-3272-8

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation