Zeitverzögerte Indikationsstellung zur additiv ventralen Versorgung thorakolumbaler Berstungsfrakturen

Percutaneous reduction of thoracolumbar fractures using monoaxial screws: Comparison of two instruments based on initial reduction and loss of reduction

Introduction

Percutaneous techniques for the surgical treatment of vertebral fractures are constantly progressing. There are different biomechanics involved.

Research question

Two percutaneous, monoaxial fixation systems with different reduction tools were analyzed in relation to their reduction capacity. Additionally, the impact of anterior fusion, fracture severity and bone quality on reduction and loss of reduction were examined.

Material and methods

117 cases were retrospectively included in the monocentric study. The subsample (N = 53) with complete data at follow-up times was used to analyze the influence of anterior fusion. The dependencies on fracture severity and bone quality were determined using Spearman and Pearson correlation.

Results

Both systems achieved equally good reduction (9° mean, 95%-CI: 8°-11°, p < 0.001). Anterior fused patients showed not significant (p = 0.057) less loss of reduction over time. Fracture severity had neither an influence on reduction or loss of reduction. Bone quality was positively correlated with greater amount of reduction and less loss of reduction. Early reduction within two days correlated with a greater amount of reduction (p = 0.006). Screw diameters and the patient's weight had no influence on loss of reduction. Complications occurred only in "V2" group.

Discussion and conclusion

Both systems are equivalent in reduction ability. The additional anterior fusion did not result in significantly lower reduction losses. The subsample being small, is a limitation. Good bone quality correlates with better initial reduction and less reduction loss. A preoperative bone density measurement can lead to optimization of surgical techniques.

Is restoration of vertebral body height after vertebral body fractures and minimally-invasive dorsal stabilization with polyaxial pedicle screws just an illusion?

INTRODUCTION

Thoracolumbar spine fractures often require surgical treatment as they are associated with spinal instability. Optimal operative techniques and treatment are discussed controversially. Aim of our prospective cohort study was to investigate the sagittal alignment after reduction, the secondary loss of reduction and the subjective outcome as well as the causal correlation of these parameters after minimally invasive stabilization of thoracic and lumbar fractures with polyaxial pedicle screws.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In a single-center study, a total of 78 patients with an average age of 61 ± 17 years who suffered a fracture of the thoracic or lumbar spine were included and subjected to a clinical and radiological follow-up examination after 8.5 ± 8 months. The kyphotic deformity was measured by determining the vertebral body angle, the mono- and bi-segmental wedge angle at three time points. The patients' subjective outcome was evaluated by the VAS spine score.

RESULTS

After surgical therapy, a significant reduction of the traumatic kyphotic deformity was shown with an improvement of all angles (vertebral body angle: 3.2° ± 4.4°, mono- and bi-segmental wedge angle: 3.1° ± 5.6°, 2.0° ± 6.3°). After follow-up, a significant loss of sagittal alignment was observed for all measured parameters with a loss of correction. However, no correlation between the loss of reduction and the subjective outcome regarding the VAS spine scale could be detected.

CONCLUSION

The minimally invasive dorsal stabilization of thoracic and lumbar spine fractures with polyaxial pedicle screws achieved a satisfactory reduction of the fracture-induced kyphotic deformity immediately postoperatively with a floss of reduction in the further course. However, maybe the main goal of this surgical procedure should be the prevention of a complete collapse of the vertebral body instead of a long-lasting restoration of anatomic sagittal alignment.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

II.

[Local spinal profile following operative treatment of thoracolumbar and lumbar fractures : Impact of reduction technique and bone quality]

Hintergrund

Ziel der Operation von Wirbelsäulenverletzungen ist eine stabile Ausheilung in physiologischer Stellung. Für offene und perkutane Operationen stehen unterschiedliche Techniken zur Verfügung.

Fragestellung

Das Ausmaß der offenen Reposition und das Retentionspotenzial der Techniken nach AOSpine (AT) und nach Kluger (KT) sollen verglichen werden. Der Einfluss von Frakturmorphologie, Alter, Geschlecht und Knochenqualität auf Reposition und Retention werden untersucht.

Material und Methoden

In dieser monozentrischen retrospektiven Kohortenstudie wurden Daten von Patienten mit traumatischen thorakolumbalen und lumbalen Frakturen untersucht, welche entweder mit AT oder KT reponiert wurden. Mittels bisegmentalen Grund-Deckplatten-Winkels (bGDW) wurde die Stellung des verletzten Wirbelsäulenabschnitts beschrieben. Normalwerte für die bGDW wurden anhand von Literaturdaten angenommen. Die Veränderung des bGDW im zeitlichen Verlauf wurde unter Einbeziehung der Knochenqualität in Hounsfield Units (HU), der Verletzungsschwere nach AOSpine und des Patientenalters und -geschlechts analysiert.

Ergebnisse

Es wurden 151 Datensätze ausgewertet. Beide Methoden reponieren vom Umfang nicht unterschiedlich (AT 10 ± 6°, KT 11 ± 8°; p = 0,786). Im Follow-up trat ein Korrekturverlust von −5 ± 4° auf. Die Technik (p = 0,998) hatte keinen Einfluss darauf. Die Frakturmorphologie zeigte einen knapp signifikanten Einfluss (p = 0,043). Niedrige HU korrelierten mit geringerem Repositionsumfang (r = 0,241, p < 0,003) und größerem Korrekturverlust (r = 0,272, p < 0,001) signifikant, aber schwach. In der Altersgruppe 50 bis 65 Jahre wiesen 21 % der Männer und 43 % der Frauen eine Knochenqualität von HU < 110 auf. Alter und HU korrelieren signifikant (r = −0,701, p < 0,001).

Diskussion

Die Techniken sind gleichwertig bezüglich der Repositions- und Retentionseigenschaften. Der hohe Anteil von Patienten mit HU < 110 in der Gruppe unter 65 Jahren bei Frauen und Männern und der Einfluss auf Reposition und Retention weisen auf die Notwendigkeit einer präoperativen Knochendichtemessung hin.

The Predictive Value of the Load Sharing Classification Concerning Sagittal Collapse and Posterior Instrumentation Failure: A Systematic Literature Review

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review.

OBJECTIVE

In 1994, the Load Sharing Classification (LSC) was introduced to aid the choice of surgical treatment of thoracolumbar spine fractures. Since that time this classification system has been commonly used in the field of spine surgery. However, current literature varies regarding its use and predictive value in relation to implant failure and sagittal collapse. The objective of this study is to assess the predictive value of the LSC concerning the need for anterior stabilization to prevent sagittal collapse and posterior instrumentation failure.

METHODS

An electronic search of PubMed, Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Library was performed. Inclusion criteria were (1) cohort or clinical trial (2) including patients with thoracolumbar burst fractures (3) whose severity of the fractured vertebrae was assessed by the LSC.

RESULTS

Five thousand eighty-two articles have been identified, of which 21 articles were included for this review. Twelve studies reported no correlation between the LSC and sagittal collapse or instrumentation failure in patients treated with short-segment posterior instrumentation (SSPI). Seven articles found no significant relation; 5 articles found no instrumentation failure at all. The remaining 9 articles experienced failure in patients with a high LSC or recommended a different surgical technique.

CONCLUSIONS

Although the LSC was originally developed to predict the need for anterior stabilization in addition to SSPI, many studies show that SSPI only can be sufficient in treating thoracolumbar fractures regardless of the LSC. The LSC might have lost its value in predicting sagittal collapse and posterior instrumentation failure.

Percutaneous versus open posterior stabilization in AOSpine type A3 thoracolumbar fractures

Background

The purpose of this retrospective cohort study was to compare treatment strategies of two level-one trauma centers regarding clinical and radiological outcomes focusing on non-osteoporotic AOSpine type A3 fractures of the thoracolumbar spine at levels T11 to L2.

Methods

Eighty-seven patients between 18 and 65 years of age that were treated operatively in either of two trauma centers were included. One treatment strategy includes open posterior stabilization whereas the other uses percutaneous posterior stabilization. Both included additional anterior fusion if necessary. Demographic data, McCormack classification, duration of surgery, hospital stay and further parameters were assessed. Owestry Disability Index (ODI), Visual Analog Scale (VAS) and SF-36 were measured for functional outcome. Bisegmental kyphosis angle, reduction loss and sagittal alignment parameters were assessed for radiological outcome. Follow up was at least 24 months.

Results

There was no significant difference regarding our primary functional outcome parameter (ODI) between both groups. Regarding radiological outcome kyphosis angle at time of follow up did not show a significant difference. Reduction loss at time of follow up was moderate in both groups with a significantly lower rate in the percutaneously stabilized group. Surgery time was significantly shorter for posterior stabilization and anterior fusion in the percutaneous group. Time of hospital stay was equal for posterior stabilization but shorter for anterior fusion in the open stabilized group.

Conclusion

Both treatment strategies are safe and effective showing only minor loss of reduction. Clinical relevant differences in functional and radiographic outcome between the two surgical groups could not be demonstrated.

Trial registration

It was conducted according to ICMJE guidelines and has been retrospectively registered with the German Clinical Trials Registry (identification number: DRKS00015693, 07.11.2018).

Comparison of combined posterior and anterior spondylodesis versus hybrid stabilization in unstable burst fractures at the thoracolumbar spine in patients between 60 and 70 years of age

INTRODUCTION

Surgical treatment of unstable burst fractures of the thoracolumbar spine in the elderly population is highly variable with combined posterior and anterior stabilization (CPAS) and posterior augmented stabilization with cementation of the vertebral body (hybrid) being two commonly used techniques. The aim of this study was to compare the clinical and radiographic outcomes of CPAS versus hybrid stabilization for the treatment of unstable burst fractures of the thoracolumbar spine in patients aged between 60 and 70 years.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective analysis was performed of all thoracolumbar burst fractures treated surgically in a single level I trauma center between June 2013 and February 2015. Two commonly used strategies of surgical stabilization were compared; the first consisted of initial posterior reduction and bisegmental stabilization, followed by additional anterior spondylodesis (CPAS); the second method comprised a hybrid technique with a posterior cement augmented bisegmental minimally invasive stabilization and kyphoplasty of the fractured vertebral body. Patients were evaluated clinically after a minimum follow-up of 18 months. The primary endpoint was the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) at the latest follow-up. Secondary parameters of interest were length of in-hospital stay (LIHS), duration of surgery (DS), surgical revisions (SR), pain level (P-VAS), satisfaction level and the SF-36 score (PSC, MSC), the bisegmental postoperative Cobb angle, the reduction loss (RL), and all alignment parameters (pelvic tilt, pelvic incidence, sacral slope, lumbar lordosis, C7 plumb line).

RESULTS

A total of 29 patients were included (17 females, 12 males, mean age 65.6 years ± 3.4 years). The following vertebral bodies were fractured: thoracic level (T) 12: n = 6; lumbar (L) 1: n = 14; L 2: n = 6; L 3: n = 3. CPAS was performed in 10 patients (34%), whereas the hybrid was carried out in 19 patients (66%). There were no statistical significant differences between both study groups regarding age, gender, trauma energy, fracture level, and fracture morphology. The latest follow-up was performed after a mean of 27 months (range 18-53 months). The LIHS between the treatment methods was statistically significant (p < 0.01); CPAS-mean 24 days versus hybrid-mean 12 days. DS was also significantly longer in patients treated with CPAS, 254 versus 95 min for the hybrid group (p < 0.01). No SR were necessary in either group. No significant differences were found regarding the clinical and radiological outcomes between the groups. The mean ODI score was 13.6 in the CPAS patients compared to 10.8 in the hybrid patients without significant differences between the groups. The majority of patients had no (80%) or minor (13%) limitations according to the ODI score. The P-VAS was 2.8 in CPAS and 2.9 in the hybrid group. RL was 7.1° in CPAS and 4.2° in the hybrid group.

CONCLUSIONS

CPAS and hybrid stabilization provide safe and promising short- and middle-term results in patients between 60 and 70 years of age. The majority of patients demonstrated no disability or minimal limitations with either technique. CPAS resulted in prolonged inpatient hospital stays, longer duration of surgery compared to hybrid stabilization without significant differences in clinical and radiological outcome.

Treatment of Fractures of the Thoracolumbar Spine: Recommendations of the Spine Section of the German Society for Orthopaedics and Trauma (DGOU)

STUDY DESIGN

consensus paper with systematic literature review.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to establish recommendations for treatment of thoracolumbar spine fractures based on systematic review of current literature and consensus of several spine surgery experts.

METHODS

The project was initiated in September 2008 and published in Germany in 2011. It was redone in 2017 based on systematic literature review, including new AOSpine classification. Members of the expert group were recruited from all over Germany working in hospitals of all levels of care. In total, the consensus process included 9 meetings and 20 hours of video conferences.

RESULTS

As regards existing studies with highest level of evidence, a clear recommendation regarding treatment (operative vs conservative) or regarding type of surgery (posterior vs anterior vs combined anterior-posterior) cannot be given. Treatment has to be indicated individually based on clinical presentation, general condition of the patient, and radiological parameters. The following specific parameters have to be regarded and are proposed as morphological modifiers in addition to AOSpine classification: sagittal and coronal alignment of spine, degree of vertebral body destruction, stenosis of spinal canal, and intervertebral disc lesion. Meanwhile, the recommendations are used as standard algorithm in many German spine clinics and trauma centers.

CONCLUSION

Clinical presentation and general condition of the patient are basic requirements for decision making. Additionally, treatment recommendations offer the physician a standardized, reproducible, and in Germany commonly accepted algorithm based on AOSpine classification and 4 morphological modifiers.

Influence of blood supply on fracture healing of vertebral bodies

INTRODUCTION

The relevance of blood supply for bone fracture healing has been discussed throughout the literature, using scaphoids as the most referred to. But, there is virtually nothing known about the relevance of blood supply for the vertebral fracture healing and even the guidelines of AO do not deal with this issue.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A prospective cohort study of 107 patients was run from January 2016 to December 2016, with 54 male and 53 female patients, who were treated for traumatic vertebral fractures of thoracolumbar spine using posterior stabilization only. The average age was 67 years and the follow-up 12.3 weeks. The total number of vertebrae was 129. We analyzed the fracture morphology and measured the vertebral bodies in all three dimensions, with five reference planes. The progress of vertebral deformity in time measured before and after the surgery was correlated with the potential damage of the main vascular canal in the rear of each vertebral body. The bone pattern and morphology were analyzed in detail as well. Pathological fractures were not taken into our consideration.

RESULTS

The overall deformity progression of vertebral bodies in the fractures with morphologically damaged blood supply was in all measured dimensions significantly higher than in the fractures with supposedly maintained perfusion. The osteoporosis played its role as well, but only with medium effect size compared with strong effect size of the vessel canal damage (Cohen). The combination of the both factors (damage to the vessel canal together with osteoporosis) showed also a strong correlation with a relevant deformity progression (Evans), but not much different from the vessel canal damage alone. With regard to the relevant changes of the vertebral body dimensions/volume, we found relevant changes in 52% of all fractures (SD 0.5017) generally, for the subgroup with the canal damage in 84% (SD 0.3691), with strong correlation (Evans, 0.7721). In the group of fractures with maintained perfusion, we found such changes in only in 5% of fractures (SD 0.2333).

CONCLUSION

For decision making, we should take mechanical fracture analysis and dynamic processes within traumatized tissue a part of whose is the blood supply and oxygenation into surgical consideration. We recommend anterior rather than posterior stabilization for the cases with damaged vessel canal, and the vertebroplasty could pose an alternative in the elderly.