ArticleSpine surgery and related research2020
What Type of Orthosis is Optimal for Conservative Treatment of Lumbar Spondylolysis?: A Biomechanical Analysis.
Article in Spine surgery and related research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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.
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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Sufficient Standardization? Evaluating the Reliability of an Inertial Sensor (BeyondSports (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Remote Orthotic Fabrication Method Using Small Three-Dimensional Printers and Computed Tomography Data: A Technical Report.Fukushima journal of medical science · 2024Article
- Article
- Optical Marker-Based Motion Capture of the Human Spine: A Scoping Review of Study Design and Outcomes.Annals of biomedical engineering · 2024Article
- Relationship between Isokinetic Trunk Muscle Strength and Return to Sports Competition after Conservative Therapy in Fresh Cases of Lumbar Spondylolysis: A Retrospective Observational Study.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Comparison of the Effectiveness of Three Lumbosacral Orthoses on Early Spine Surgery Patients: A Prospective Cohort Study.Annals of rehabilitation medicine · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionTo analyze the extent to which various types of orthoses can restrict motion of the lumbar spine and provide basic evidence regarding the optimal orthosis for conservative treatment of lumbar spondylolysis (LS), particularly. Although several orthoses have been developed and applied for LS with better outcomes for bony healing, basic data regarding which is optimal are still lacking.
methodsTen healthy voluntary participants were included in this study. Lumbar spine range of motion (ROM) was analyzed using a three-dimensional motion capture system (NEXUS 2.2, Vicon Motion Systems Ltd., UK) under five conditions wearing no orthosis (NB) and four types of lumbar-sacral orthoses (LSO): custom-made hard LSO (HO), soft LSO supported by four aluminum stays and a custom-molded back cast-panel named "Return to Sports" braces (RS), custom-made soft LSO known as Damen type elasticity corset (DC), and off-the-shelf soft LSO.
resultsHO showed the highest restriction of motion in all directions than the others. Especially, ROM of rotation and side bending were reduced to 58.3% and 63.6% compared with NB, respectively. The other three LSOs showed significantly higher restriction in extension, rotation, and side bending than NB. In flexion and side bending, DC showed significantly higher restriction than NB.
conclusionsHO showed high restriction in all directions. RS showed higher restriction in extension than NB and less restriction in flexion and side bending than other custom-made LSOs. DC was the only soft LSO showing higher restriction than NB in flexion.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.