The Efficacy of Systemic Transdermal Diclofenac Patch for Postoperative Pain after Lumbar Spinal Surgery.

STUDY DESIGN: A single-center, prospective, comparative study. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of the systemic transdermal diclofenac patch (DP) for immediate postoperative analgesia after lumbar spinal surgery. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Effective wound pain control after spinal surgery has been shown to lead to favorable outcomes. Using multimodal analgesia may decrease opioid use for postoperative pain. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients who underwent posterior lumbar spinal surgery between August 2022 and January 2023 were divided into two groups: patients who underwent surgery on even months and were treated with DP (DP [+] group) and those who underwent surgery on odd months and were not treated with DP (DP [-] group). The demographic data, morphine milligram equivalent (MMEs) within 24 hours, duration of hospitalization, number of rescue analgesics used, visual analog scale (VAS) scores of wound pain, deterioration in renal function, and other complications were compared. Subgroup analysis consisted of subgroups categorized based on surgical procedure (non-fusion or fusion surgery). RESULTS: In total, 111 and 113 patients were enrolled in the DP (+) and DP (-) groups, respectively. There was no significant difference in the deterioration of renal function in the DP (+) group. Overall comparisons demonstrated a significant difference between the DP (+) and DP (-) groups in the number of rescue analgesics used within 1 hour (P=0.046). In the non-fusion surgery subgroups, the MMEs within 24 hours, the number of rescue analgesics used within 1 and 3 hours, as well as the wound pain VAS at 1 and 3 hours postoperatively were significantly lower in the DP (+) group than in the DP (-) group (P=0.010, 0.015, 0.029, 0.005, and 0.048 respectively). CONCLUSION: Systemic transdermal DP may potentially offer safe and effective postoperative analgesia, especially in less invasive procedures such as non-fusion lumbar spinal surgery. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.

Is Orthotic Treatment Beneficial for Fresh Osteoporotic Vertebral Fractures? A Propensity Score Matching Study.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Orthotic treatment is a common option for the conservative treatment of osteoporotic vertebral fractures (OVF). However, there is insufficient evidence of its clinical benefit. PURPOSE: To investigate the effectiveness of orthotic treatment for OVF. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: Retrospective cohort study with data from two prospective studies. PATIENT SAMPLE: This study included 160 patients with fresh OVF enrolled in 2012 and 2020 prospective cohort studies. OUTCOME MEASURES: The visual analog scale (VAS) score for low back pain was used for clinical outcomes, and radiographic parameters included the percent height of the vertebra and angular change of the vertebral body. Moreover, the occurrence of secondary vertebral fractures was followed-up over time. METHODS: The patients were divided into brace and no-brace groups and were matched according to propensity score for age, sex, anterior percent height at the initial examination, and presence of old OVFs. Hazard ratio for the cumulative incidence of secondary vertebral fractures with and without bracing were calculated and analyzed using the generalized Wilcoxon test. In addition, the brace group was divided into soft and rigid brace groups and compared with the no-brace group. RESULTS: Each group had 61 cases after propensity score matching. There were no significant differences in the VAS improvement for low back pain and the change in percent height of the anterior and posterior walls from initial examination to 6 months after injury (p = 0.87, p = 0.39 and p = 0.14, respectively, mixed-effect models). Meanwhile, the mean angular change of fractured vertebrae was 4.3° / 3.2° initially and 1.2° / 2.5° at 6 months (the brace group / no-brace group, respectively; p = 0.007, mixed-effect models). A significant difference was also observed between the rigid brace group and the no-brace group (p = 0.008, mixed effect models). The incidence of secondary vertebral fractures was 1.6% / 11.4% at 1 month, indicating a significant difference (the brace group / no-brace group, respectively; p = 0.028). The hazard ratio for the cumulative incidence of secondary fractures due to orthotic treatment was 0.47 (95% confidence interval 0.20-1.09, p = 0.054). CONCLUSIONS: Although orthotic treatment for fresh OVF did not relieve pain, it might contribute to the stabilization of the fractured vertebra, especially using a rigid brace. Moreover, it might influence a reduction of the imminent vertebral fracture risk immediately after the onset of OVF. CLASSIFICATIONS: Clinical study.