Bracing Versus No Bracing for the Nonoperative Management of A3/A4 Thoracolumbar Burst Fractures:

Study Design: Retrospective review of prospectively collected data. Objective: The objective of this study is to compare the clinical outcomes of patients treated with or without a stabilizing brace for neurologically intact thoracolumbar burst fractures. Summary of Background Data: The role of bracing in the nonoperative management of thoracolumbar burst fractures remains controversial. Methods: This post hoc subanalysis of a prospective, multicenter study examined patients with type A3 or A4 thoracolumbar burst fractures without neurologic deficit who were treated nonoperatively with either a stabilizing brace or no brace. The primary outcomes were achieving the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) and patient acceptable symptom state (PASS) in the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). Secondary outcomes included return to work, mental health, pain, and overall patient satisfaction with treatment. Results: In total, 76 patients met inclusion criteria for the study including 48 patients (63%) treated with bracing and 28 (37%) patients treated without bracing. Time-to-event analyses indicated no differences in achieving MCID or PASS in ODI between patients with and without a stabilizing brace (all P >0.05). Significantly better scores were seen in the bracing group when compared with the non-bracing group at 3 months in terms of pain and overall satisfaction with care (both P <0.05). Anxiety/depression scores were better in the bracing group at all follow-up visits except the 3-month follow-up visit when compared with the non-bracing group (all P <0.05). Conclusions: We found no statistically significant differences in PROMs, return to work, or satisfaction at 1 year between patients treated with or without bracing. However, bracing was associated with improved pain, anxiety/depression scores, and satisfaction in the early period after injury. Bracing may offer advantages in terms of patient comfort and mental health in the short term but likely has no bearing on longer-term outcome in neurologically intact patients with thoracolumbar burst fractures. Level of Evidence: Level III.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Spine Open
Published
2026-06-25
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1097/bn9.0000000000000056
Primary Topic
Spinal Fractures and Fixation Techniques
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Bracing Versus No Bracing for the Nonoperative Management of A3/A4 Thoracolumbar Burst Fractures:

Brian A. Karamian, Miguel Hirschfeld, Cumhur F Öner, Mohammad El-Skarkawi et al.
Spine Open
Spinal Fractures and Fixation Techniques
article

Bracing Versus No Bracing for the Nonoperative Management of A3/A4 Thoracolumbar Burst Fractures:

Brian A. Karamian, Miguel Hirschfeld, Cumhur F Öner, Mohammad El-Skarkawi, Gregory Schroeder, M F Dvorak, S Rajasekaran, Sebastian Bigdon, Harvinder Singh Chhabra, Klaus John Schnake, Jin Wee Tee, Lorin M. Benneker, Andrei Fernandes Joaquim, James Connelly, Eugen Cezar Popescu, Alexander R. Vaccaro, Charlotte Dandurand, Richard J. Bransford
article en

Abstract

Study Design: Retrospective review of prospectively collected data. Objective: The objective of this study is to compare the clinical outcomes of patients treated with or without a stabilizing brace for neurologically intact thoracolumbar burst fractures. Summary of Background Data: The role of bracing in the nonoperative management of thoracolumbar burst fractures remains controversial. Methods: This post hoc subanalysis of a prospective, multicenter study examined patients with type A3 or A4 thoracolumbar burst fractures without neurologic deficit who were treated nonoperatively with either a stabilizing brace or no brace. The primary outcomes were achieving the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) and patient acceptable symptom state (PASS) in the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). Secondary outcomes included return to work, mental health, pain, and overall patient satisfaction with treatment. Results: In total, 76 patients met inclusion criteria for the study including 48 patients (63%) treated with bracing and 28 (37%) patients treated without bracing. Time-to-event analyses indicated no differences in achieving MCID or PASS in ODI between patients with and without a stabilizing brace (all P >0.05). Significantly better scores were seen in the bracing group when compared with the non-bracing group at 3 months in terms of pain and overall satisfaction with care (both P <0.05). Anxiety/depression scores were better in the bracing group at all follow-up visits except the 3-month follow-up visit when compared with the non-bracing group (all P <0.05). Conclusions: We found no statistically significant differences in PROMs, return to work, or satisfaction at 1 year between patients treated with or without bracing. However, bracing was associated with improved pain, anxiety/depression scores, and satisfaction in the early period after injury. Bracing may offer advantages in terms of patient comfort and mental health in the short term but likely has no bearing on longer-term outcome in neurologically intact patients with thoracolumbar burst fractures. Level of Evidence: Level III.

Spine OpenVol. 2(3)
University of Bern (CH), University of British Columbia (CA), Universidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP) (BR), University of Washington (US), University of Utah (US), Thomas Jefferson University Hospital (US), University Hospital of Bern (CH), The Alfred Hospital (AU), Vancouver General Hospital (CA), University Medical Center Utrecht (NL), Hospital Costa del Sol (ES), Malteser Waldkrankenhaus Erlangen (DE), Paracelsus Medizinische Privatuniversität (DE), Klinik Sonnenhof (CH), National Trauma Research Institute (AU), Rothman Institute (US), Ganga Hospital (IN), Institute of Medical Sciences (IN), Monash University (AU), Universidad de Málaga (ES), Assiut University (EG)
Reduced inequalities
Openalex Percentile: Top 6%
Spinal Fractures and Fixation Techniques
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.