Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29331975›Full record

Trial reportBMJ open2018

Is postoperative bracing after pedicle screw fixation of spine fractures necessary? Study protocol of the ORNOT study: a randomised controlled multicentre trial.

Arjen Johannes Smits, Jaap Deunk, Agnita Stadhouder, Mark Cornelis Altena, Diederik Hendrik Ruth Kempen, Frank Willem Bloemers

Registry-linked trialAbstract readMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled TrialEquivalence Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMJ open, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03097081 (Orthosis Versus no Orthosis After Dorsally Fixated Traumatic Thoracolumbar Fractures), which is not on this map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT03097081 narecruitingnot on this map

Orthosis Versus no Orthosis After Dorsally Fixated Traumatic Thoracolumbar Fractures

TypeinterventionalSponsorAmsterdam UMC, location VUmcRan2016 to 2026Enrolled45ConditionsSpine Fracture, Orthosis, Traumatic Fracture, Posterior FixationArmsNo orthosis, Orthosis
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Arjen Johannes SmitsDepartment of Trauma Surgery, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-7630-8333
Jaap DeunkDepartment of Trauma Surgery, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Agnita StadhouderDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Mark Cornelis AltenaDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, Onze Lieve Vrouwe Gasthuis, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Diederik Hendrik Ruth KempenDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, Onze Lieve Vrouwe Gasthuis, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Frank Willem BloemersDepartment of Trauma Surgery, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionThe most common surgical treatment of traumatic spine fractures is through a posterior approach using pedicle screws and rods. Postoperative treatment protocols including the use of postoperative orthoses however differ between hospitals and surgeons. A three-point hyperextension orthosis is designed to support proper posture and unload the anterior column. Some motion remains when wearing an orthosis, and its main value in postoperative treatment is therefore believed to be pain relief and patient confidence. This could consequently shorten recovery time. On the other hand, an orthosis could also lead to muscle weakness and slow down recovery. Any orthosis-related complications might also be avoided. Additionally, recent studies on conservative fracture treatment show no difference in radiological outcomes with or without an orthosis. To date, no randomised studies have been performed on the use of postoperative orthoses. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Patients undergoing posterior fixation with pedicle screws for a traumatic thoracolumbar fracture (T7-L4) will be included in this randomised controlled multicentre non-inferiority trial. Forty-six patients will be randomised 1:1 to one of the two parallel groups; one group will wear a postoperative orthosis for 6 weeks followed by 6 weeks of weaning and one group will not wear an orthosis. The primary outcome is pain at 6 weeks reported on the Numerical Rating Scale. Secondary outcomes consist of pain on other moments, analgesic use, complications and length of hospital stay, quality of life (EuroQuol 5 Dimensions), back pain-related function (Oswestry Disability Index) and radiological outcomes with a follow-up of 1 year. Orthosis compliance is monitored weekly in the orthosis group. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The institutional review board (METc VUmc) approved this study on 11 October 2016 under case number 2016.389. After completion of the trial, the results will be offered to an international scientific journal for peer-reviewed publication. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03097081 and NTR6285; Pre-results.

Indexed as

BracesPedicle ScrewsPostoperative CareAdolescentAdultAgedFemaleFracture Fixation, InternalHumansLumbar VertebraeMaleMiddle AgedMovementMusculoskeletal PainPostoperative ComplicationsPostoperative Periodbraceorthosispainpedicle screwsspinal fractures

Identifiers

PMID29331975
PMCPMC5781062

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.