Case report: lumbal spine compression fractures in spondylolisthesis modified chairback orthosis

Abstract

Lumbosacral orthoses are used commonly as a conservative treatment method in spondylolisthesis and stable spine compression fractures. Modified chairback orthosis, which developed by 4 forces on the basis of biomechanical principles, was applied with the spondylolisthesis to the 74 year old case who has a compression fracture. Effect of orthosis was assesed by comparing lumbosacral region range of motion and effect to the daily activities was assessed by comparing rigid LSO. As a result, modified chairback orthosis allowed 2º-7º motion at lumbosacral region and reduced the pain. Orthosis did not cause any difficulty in daily activites except putting on and off

Keywords

• LSO, chairback orthosis, spondylolisthesis, compression fracture, spinal stenosis

Vaka Sunumu: Spondilolistezis Lumbal Spinal Kompresyon Kırığı Modifiye Chairback Ortezi

Abstract

Lumbosakral ortezler spondilolistezis ve stabil omurga kompresyon kırıklarında konservatif bir tedavi metodu olarak kullanılır. Modifiye chairback ortezi, biomekanik prensibler temelinde olarak 4 kuvvet prensibine göre geliştirildi ve 74 yaşında, geriatrik, kompresyon kırığı olan vakaya uygulandı. Ortezin etkisi lumbosakral bölge hareket açıklığı ve günlük yaşam aktivitelerine etkisi incelenerek ve rijid LSO ile karşılaştırılarak değerlendirildi. Sonuç olarak, modifiye chairback ortezi lumbosakral bölgede 2º-7º lik harekete izin verdi ve ağrıyı azalttı. Ortez günlük aktivitelerde giyme ve çıkarma zorluğuna sebep olmadı

Keywords

• LSO, chairback ortezi, spondilolistezis, kompresyon kırıkları, spinal stenoz

References

1. Alsancak S. 2009. Ortez.Hatipoglu. Pres, 129-131.
2. Buchalter D, Kahanovitz N, Viola K, Dorsky S, Nordin M. 1988. Threedimensional spinal motion measurements. Part 2: A noninvasive assessment of lumbar brace immobilization of the spine. J Spinal Disord, 1(4),284-286.
3. Cantor JB, Lebwohl NH, Garvey T, Eismont FJ. 1993. Nonoperative management of stable thoracolumbar burst fractures with early ambulation and bracing. Spine, 18,971-6.
4. Chan DP, Seng NK, Kaan KT. 1993. Nonoperative treatment in burst fractures of the lumbar spine (L2-L5) without neurolojic deficits. Spine, 18,320-5.
5. Grobler LJ, Robertson PA, Novotny JE, et al. 1993. Etiology of spondylolisthesis: assessment of the role played by lumbar facet joint morphology. Spine, 18,80-91.
6. Grew ND, Deane G. 1982. The physical effect of lumbar spinal supports. Prosthet Orthot Int;6.79-87.
7. Hsu DJ, Michael WJ, Fisk RJ. 2008. AAOS Atlas of Orthoses and Assistive Devices Fourth Edition, Mosby. Chapter 8., p.113-124.
8. Jegede KA, Miller CP, Bible JE, Whang PG, Grauer JN. 2011. The effects of three different types of Orthoses on the Range of Motion of the Lumbar Spine During fifteen Activities of daily living. Spine, Feb.24.

9. Jellema P, van Tulder MW, van Poppel MN, Nachemson AL, Bouter LM. 2001. Lumbar supports for prevention and treatment of low back pain: asystematic review within the framework of the Cochrane Back Review Group. Spine, 26(4), 377-386.
10. Knight RQ, Stornelli DP, Chan DPK, Devanny JR, Jackson KV. 1987. Comparison of operative versus nonoperative treatment of lumbar burst fractures. Clin Orthop, 187,163-170.
11. Koes BW, van den Hoogen HMM. 1994. Efficacy of bed rest and orthoses on low back pain: a review of randomized clinical trials. Eur J Phys Med Rehabil, 4,86-93.
12. Krag MH, Fox MJ, Haugh LD. 2003. Comparison of three lumbar orthoses using motion assessment during task performance. Spine, 28(20), 2359-2367.
13. Lantz SA, Schultz AB. 1986. Lumbar spine orthosis wearing. I. Restriction of gross body motions. Spine, 11(8),834-837.
14. McEvoy RD, Bradford DS. 1985. The management of burst fractures of the thoracic and lumbar spine. Experience in 53 patients. Spine, 10,631-7.
15. McGill SM. 1993. Abdominal belts in industry: a position paper on their assets, liabilities and use. Am Ind Hyg Assoc J, 54(12),752-754.
16. McGill SM. 1998. Update on the use back belts in industry: more data – same conclusion. In The Occupational Ergonomics Handbook Edited by:Karwowski W, Marras WS. CRC, 1353-1358.
17. Parnianpour M, Franceschini G, Torre D, Yuen L. 1990. The effects of lumbar support on the isoinertial strength and endurance performance of normal healthy males . In: Abstracts of the International Society for the Study of the Lumbar Spine, 61.
18. Prateepavanich P, Thanapipatsiri S, Santisatisakul P, et al. 2001. The effectiveness of lumbosacral corset in symptomatic degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis. J Med Assoc Thai, 84,572-576.
19. Shur GD, Michael JW. 2002. Prosthetics and Orthotics, 2nd ed. Pretice Hall Pres, 203-227.
20. Tezer M, Erturer RE, Ozturk C, Ozturk I, Kuzgun U. 2005. Conservative treatment of fractures of the thoracolumbar spine. International Orthopadedics, 29,78-82.
21. Tonbul M, Yılmaz MR, Ozbaydar MU, Adas M, Altan E. 2008. Long-term results of conservative treatment for thoracolumbar compression fractures. Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc, 42(2),80-83.
22. Weinstein JN, Collalto P, Lehmann TR. 1988. Thoracolumbar ‘burst’ fractures treated conservatively: a long- term follow-up. Spine, 13,33-8.
23. Willner S. 1985. Effect of a rigid brace on back pain. Acta Orthop Scand, 56,40-42.
24. van Poppel MN, de Looze MP, Koes BW, Smid T, Bouter LM. 2000. Mechanisms of action of lumbar supports: a systematic review. Spine, 25(16),2103-2113.
25. van Duijvenbode IC, Jellema P, van Poppel MN, van Tulder MW. 2008. Lumbar supports for prevention and treatment of low back pain. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. CD001823.