Combined posteroanterior fusion versus transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) in thoracolumbar burst fractures

Surgical treatment of traumatic fractures of the thoracic and lumbar spine: A systematic review

Introduction

The treatment of traumatic thoracic and lumbar spine fractures remains controversial. To date no consensus exists on the correct choice of surgical approach and technique.

Research question

to provide a comprehensive up-to-date overview of the available different surgical methods and their quantified outcomes.

Methods

PubMed and EMBASE were searched between 2001 and 2020 using the term 'spinal fractures'. Inclusion criteria were: adults, ≥10 cases, ≥12 months follow-up, thoracic or lumbar fractures, and surgery <3 weeks of trauma. Studies were categorized per surgical technique: Posterior open (PO), posterior percutaneous (PP), stand-alone vertebral body augmentation (SA), anterior scopic (AS), anterior open (AO), posterior percutaneous and anterior open (PPAO), posterior percutaneous and anterior scopic (PPAS), posterior open and anterior open (POAO) and posterior open and anterior scopic (POAS). The PO group was used as a reference group.

Results

After duplicate removal 6042 articles were identified. A total of 102 articles were Included, in which 137 separate surgical technique cohorts were described: PO (n = 75), PP, (n = 39), SA (n = 12), AO (n = 5), PPAO (n = 1), PPAS (n = 1), POAO (n = 2) and POAS (n = 2).

Discussion and conclusion

For type A3/A4 burst fractures, without severe neurological deficit, posterior percutaneous (PP) technique seems the safest and most feasible option in the past two decades. If needed, PP can be combined with anterior augmentation to prevent secondary kyphosis. Furthermore, posterior open (PO) technique is feasible in almost all types of fractures. Also, this technique can provide for an additional posterior decompression or fusion. Overall, no neurologic deterioration was reported following surgical intervention.

Operative results of AO A3 and A4 traumatic injuries in the thoracic and lumbar spine. A multicenter surveillance study of 4230 patients from the German Spine Registry (DWG-Register)

BACKGROUND

The diagnosis, classification and treatment of thoracolumbar burst fractures, continue to be controversial. Surgery is generally the preferred treatment for unstable fractures while stable fractures are managed conservatively. This study aims to describe surgical procedures, outcomes, complications, demography, clinical features and differences between A3 and A4 fractures (AO classification) of the thoracolumbar region. A subgroup of patients <91 years with osteoporotic fractures is included and analyzed.

METHODS

Analysis of data from the DWG-Register German spine registry on operative treatment for thoracolumbar AO A3 and A4 fractures out of 170 departments from January 2017 to May 2021. The evaluated variables included age, gender, surgical approach (posterior, anterior combined), and re-operation.

RESULTS

In total, 4230 AO A3 and A4 thoracolumbar fractures were identified in the registry; 2898 A3 (group 1) and 1332 A4 (group 2). The preoperative ASIA-impairment scale score in group 1 was significantly different compared with group 2 (P=0.02). Surgical procedures such as decompression/stabilization with rod-screw system cemented/non-cemented, as well as an anterior approach, were statistically significant between the groups. Odds ratio was calculated for variables that could be influenced for the type of fracture (A3 or A4): decompression 4.89, OR time >2 hours 48.22, osteoporosis 6.46 and posterior access 9.85.

CONCLUSIONS

This study provides multicenter results from a huge number of surgically treated AO A3 and A4 fractures. Anterior approaches are more often used in A4 type fractures, probably because of its inherent instability related to burst fractures, surprisingly, not associated with the occurrence of added perioperative complications. Nevertheless, A3 type fractures are presented with worse ASIA Impairment-Scale at admission, in comparison with A4 type fractures of the thoracolumbar region.

Thoracolumbar Burst Fractures: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Comparing Posterior-Only Instrumentation Versus Combined Anterior-Posterior Instrumentation

STUDY DESIGN

Meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the clinical, functional, and radiological outcomes of posterior-only versus combined anterior-posterior instrumentation in order to determine the optimal surgical intervention for thoracolumbar burst fractures.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Unstable thoracolumbar burst fractures warrant surgical intervention to prevent neurological deterioration and progressive kyphosis, which can lead to significant pain and functional morbidity. The available literature remains largely inconclusive in determining the optimal instrumentation strategy.

METHODS

Electronic searches of MEDLINE (1948-May 2020), EMBASE (1947-May 2020), The Cochrane Library (1991-May 2020), and other databases were conducted. Cochrane Collaboration guidelines were used for data extraction and quality assessment. Outcomes of interest were divided into three categories: radiological (degree of postoperative kyphosis correction; loss of kyphosis correction at final follow-up), functional (visual analogue scale [VAS] pain score; Oswestry Disability Index [ODI] score), and clinical (intraoperative blood loss; length of stay [LOS]; operative time; the number and type of postoperative complications).

RESULTS

Four randomized control trials (RCTs) were retrieved, including 145 randomized participants. Seventy-three patients underwent posterior-only instrumentation and 72 underwent combined instrumentation. No significant difference was found in the degree of postoperative kyphosis correction (P = 0.39), VAS (centimeters) at final follow-up (P = 0.67), ODI at final follow-up (P = 0.89) or the number of postoperative complications between the two approaches (P = 0.49). Posterior-only instrumentation was associated with lower blood loss (P < 0.001), operative time (P < 0.001), and LOS (P = 0.01). Combined instrumentation had a lower degree of kyphosis loss at final follow-up (P = 0.001). There was heterogeneity in the duration of follow-up between the included studies (mean follow-up range 24-121 months).

CONCLUSION

The available literature remains largely inconclusive. In order to reliably inform practice in this area, there is a need for large, high-quality, multicenter RCTs with standardized reporting of outcomes, with a particular focus on outcomes relating to patient function and severe complications causing long-term morbidity.Level of Evidence: 2.

Does Combined Anterior-Posterior Approach Improve Outcomes Compared with Posterioronly Approach in Traumatic Thoracolumbar Burst Fractures?: A Systematic Review

The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the surgical, radiological, and functional outcomes of posterior-only versus combined anterior-posterior approaches in patients with traumatic thoracolumbar burst fractures. The ideal approach (anterior-only, posterior-only, or combined anterior-posterior) for the surgical management of thoracolumbar burst fracture remains controversial, with each approach having its advantages and disadvantages. A systematic review following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines was performed (registration no., CRD42018115120). The authors reviewed comparative studies evaluating posterior-only approach compared with combined anterior-posterior approaches with respect to clinical, surgical, radiographic, and functional outcome measures. Five retrospective cohort studies were included. Postoperative neurological deterioration was not reported in either group. Operative time, estimated blood loss, and postoperative length of stay were increased among patients in the combined anterior-posterior group in one study and equivalent between groups in another study. No significant difference was observed between the two approaches with regards to long-term postoperative Cobb angle (mean difference, -0.2; 95% confidence interval, -5.2 to 4.8; p =0.936). Moreover, no significant difference in functional patient outcomes was observed in the 36item Short-Form Health Survey, Visual Analog Scale, and return-to-work rates between the two groups. The available evidence does not indicate improved clinical, radiologic (including kyphotic deformity), and functional outcomes in the combined anterior-posterior and posterior-only approaches in the management of traumatic thoracolumbar burst fractures. Further studies are required to ascertain if a subset of patients will benefit from a combined anterior-posterior approach.

Congress of Neurological Surgeons Systematic Review and Evidence-Based Guidelines on the Evaluation and Treatment of Patients with Thoracolumbar Spine Trauma: Surgical Approaches

QUESTION

Does the choice of surgical approach (anterior, posterior, or combined anterior-posterior) improve clinical outcomes in patients with thoracic and lumbar fractures?

RECOMMENDATIONS

In the surgical treatment of patients with thoracolumbar burst fractures, physicians may use an anterior, posterior, or a combined approach as the selection of approach does not appear to impact clinical or neurological outcomes. Strength of Recommendation: Grade B With regard to radiologic outcomes in the surgical treatment of patients with thoracolumbar fractures, physicians may utilize an anterior, posterior, or combined approach because there is conflicting evidence in the comparison among approaches. Strength of Recommendation: Grade Insufficient With regard to complications in the surgical treatment of patients with thoracolumbar fractures, physicians may use an anterior, posterior, or combined approach because there is conflicting evidence in the comparison among approaches. Strength of Recommendation: Grade Insufficient The full version of the guideline can be reviewed at: https://www.cns.org/guideline-chapters/congress-neurological-surgeons-systematic-review-evidence-based-guidelines/chapter_11.

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.

Monosegmental anterior column reconstruction using an expandable vertebral body replacement device in combined posterior-anterior stabilization of thoracolumbar burst fractures

INTRODUCTION

In combined posterior-anterior stabilization of thoracolumbar burst fractures, the expandable vertebral body replacement device (VBRD) is typically placed bisegmentally for anterior column reconstruction (ACR). The aim of this study, however, was to assess feasibility, outcome and potential pitfalls of monosegmental ACR using a VBRD. In addition, clinical and radiological outcome of monosegmental ACR was related to that of bisegmental ACR using the same thoracoscopic technique.

METHODS

Thirty-seven consecutive neurologically intact patients with burst fractures of the thoracolumbar junction (T11-L2) treated by combined posterior-anterior stabilization were included. Monosegmental ACR was performed in 18 and bisegmental ACR in 19 patients. Fracture type and extent of vertebral body comminution were determined on preoperative CT scans. Monosegmental and bisegmental kyphosis angles were analyzed preoperatively, postoperatively and at final radiological follow-up. Clinical outcome was assessed after a minimum of 2 years (74 ± 45 months; range 24-154; follow-up rate 89.2%) using VAS Spine Score, RMDQ, ODI and WHOQOL-BREF.

RESULTS

Monosegmental ACR resulted in a mean monosegmental and bisegmental surgical correction of - 15.6 ± 7.7° and - 14.7 ± 8.1°, respectively. Postoperative monosegmental and bisegmental loss of correction averaged 2.7 ± 2.7° and 5.2 ± 3.7°, respectively. Two surgical pitfalls of monosegmental ACR were identified: VBRD positioning (1) onto the weak cancellous bone (too far cranially to the inferior endplate of the fractured vertebra) and (2) onto a significantly compromised inferior endplate with at least two (even subtle) fracture lines. Ignoring these pitfalls resulted in VBRD subsidence in five cases. When relating the clinical and radiological outcome of monosegmental ACR to that of bisegmental ACR, no significant differences were found, except for frequency of VBRD subsidence (5 vs. 0, P = 0.02) and bisegmental loss of correction (5.2 ± 3.7° vs. 2.6 ± 2.5°, P = 0.022). After exclusion of cases with VBRD subsidence, the latter did not reach significance anymore (4.9 ± 4.0° vs. 2.6 ± 2.5°, P = 0.084).

CONCLUSIONS

This study indicates that monosegmental ACR using a VBRD is feasible in thoracolumbar burst fractures if the inferior endplate is intact (incomplete burst fractures) or features only a single simple split fracture line (burst-split fractures). If the two identified pitfalls are avoided, monosegmental ACR may be a viable alternative to bisegmental ACR in selected thoracolumbar burst fractures to spare a motion segment and to reduce the distance for bony fusion.

Post-operative bracing after pedicle screw fixation for thoracolumbar burst fractures: A cost-effectiveness study

PURPOSE

While frequently prescribed to patients following fixation for spine trauma, the utility of spinal orthoses during the post-operative period is poorly described in the literature. In this study, we calculated rates of reoperation and performed a decision analysis to determine the utility of bracing following pedicle screw fixation for thoracic and lumbar burst fractures.

METHODS

Pubmed was searched for articles published between 2005 and 2015 for terms related to pedicle screw fixation of thoracolumbar fractures. Additionally, a database of neurosurgical patients operated on within the authors institution was also used in the analysis. Incidences of significant adverse events (wound revision for either dehiscence or infection or re-operation for non-union or instability due to hardware failure) were determined. Pooled means and variances of reported parameters were obtained using a random-effects, inverse variance meta-analytic model for observational data. Utilities for surgical outcome and complications were assigned using previously published values.

RESULTS

Of the 225 abstracts reviewed, 48 articles were included in the study, yielding a total of 1957 patients. After including patients from the institutional registry, together a total of 2081 patients were included in the final analysis, 1328 of whom were braced. Non-braced patients were older then braced patients, although this only approached significance (p=0.051). Braced patients had significantly lower rates of re-operation for non-union or clinically significant hardware failure (1.3% vs. 1.8%, p<0.001) although the groups had comparable rates of operative wound dehiscence and infection (p=1.000). These two approaches yielded comparable utility scores (p=0.120). Costs between braced and non-braced patients were comparable excluding the cost of the brace (p=0.256); hence, the added cost of the brace suggests that bracing post-operatively is not a cost effective measure.

CONCLUSIONS

Bracing following operative stabilization of thoracolumbar fracture does not significantly improve stability, nor does it increase wound complications. Moreover, our data suggests that post-operative bracing may not be a cost-effective measure.

Minimally Invasive Posterior Decompression Combined With Percutaneous Pedicle Screw Fixation for the Treatment of Thoracolumbar Fractures With Neurological Deficits: A Prospective Randomized Study Versus Traditional Open Posterior Surgery

STUDY DESIGN

Prospective randomized cohort study.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the surgical results of minimally invasive posterior decompression combined with percutaneous pedicle screws fixation (minimally invasive surgery [MIS]) and posterior open surgery (OS) for the treatment of thoracolumbar fracture with neurological deficits.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Thoracolumbar fracture with neurological deficits usually undergoes surgical intervention. OS can achieve satisfied results, but the main disadvantage is approach-related complications. No study, however, focused on the treatment of this disease by MIS through posterior approach.

METHODS

Sixty consecutive cases of thoracolumbar fractures with neurological deficits were randomized into MIS group and OS group. Incision length, blood loss, postoperative drainage volume, hospitalization days, blood transfusion rate, analgesic use rate, and x-ray exposure time were used to evaluate the perioperative information and Visual Analog Scale (VAS), Japanese Orthopedics Association (JOA) score, and American Spinal Injury Association grade for patients' symptom. For radiological assessment, sagittal Cobb angle, percentage of vertebral height, and vertebral wedging angle were measured.

RESULTS

Fifty-nine of sixty patients were followed-up for at least 12 months. MIS group was superior in perioperative information (P < 0.05), except in the operative time (P = 0.165) and x-ray time (P = 0.000). The operative time seemed longer in MIS group, but no significant difference was found. The x-ray time was significantly higher in MIS group. The mean Visual Analog Scale and Japanese Orthopedics Association scores of the final follow-up in MIS group were better than that in OS group (P < 0.05). Patients in both group achieved a similar neurological recovery according to American Spinal Injury Association grade (P = 0.760). A broken screw was found in one patient in MIS group and a broken rod in one patient in OS group.

CONCLUSION

MIS group has achieved the similar effect of OS group and it can minimize the approach-related complication. It also faced with some shortages, such as larger radiation dose and longer learning curve.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

2.

The selection of core International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health (ICF) categories for patient-reported outcome measurement in spine trauma patients-results of an international consensus process

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

There is no outcome instrument specifically designed and validated for spine trauma patients without complete paralysis, which makes it difficult to compare outcomes of different treatments of the spinal column injury within and between studies.

PURPOSE

The paper aimed to report on the evidence-based consensus process that resulted in the selection of core International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health (ICF) categories, as well as the response scale for use in a universal patient-reported outcome measure for patients with traumatic spinal column injury.

STUDY DESIGN/SETTING

The study used a formal decision-making and consensus process.

PATIENT SAMPLE

The sample includes patients with a primary diagnosis of traumatic spinal column injury, excluding completely paralyzed and polytrauma patients.

OUTCOME MEASURES

The wide array of function and health status of patients with traumatic spinal column injury was explored through the identification of all potentially meaningful ICF categories.

METHODS

A formal decision-making and consensus process integrated evidence from four preparatory studies. Three studies aimed to identify relevant ICF categories from three different perspectives. The research perspective was covered by a systematic literature review identifying outcome measures focusing on the functioning and health of spine trauma patients. The expert perspective was explored through an international web-based survey among spine surgeons from the five AOSpine International world regions. The patient perspective was investigated in an international empirical study. A fourth study investigated various response scales for their potential use in the future universal outcome instrument. This work was supported by AOSpine. AOSpine is a clinical division of the AO Foundation, an independent medically guided non-profit organization. The AOSpine Knowledge Forums are pathology-focused working groups acting on behalf of AOSpine in their domain of scientific expertise.

RESULTS

Combining the results of the preparatory studies, the list of ICF categories presented at the consensus conference included 159 different ICF categories. Based on voting and discussion, 11 experts from 6 countries selected a total of 25 ICF categories as core categories for patient-reported outcome measurement in adult traumatic spinal column injury patients (9 body functions, 14 activities and participation, and 2 environmental factors). The experts also agreed to use the Numeric Rating Scale 0-100 as response scale in the future universal outcome instrument.

CONCLUSIONS

A formal consensus process integrating evidence and expert opinion led to a set of 25 core ICF categories for patient-reported outcome measurement in adult traumatic spinal column injury patients, as well as the response scale for use in the future universal disease-specific outcome instrument. The adopted core ICF categories could also serve as a benchmark for assessing the content validity of existing and future outcome instruments used in this specific patient population.

The Thoracolumbar AOSpine Injury Score

Study Design Survey of 100 worldwide spine surgeons. Objective To develop a spine injury score for the AOSpine Thoracolumbar Spine Injury Classification System. Methods Each respondent was asked to numerically grade the severity of each variable of the AOSpine Thoracolumbar Spine Injury Classification System. Using the results, as well as limited input from the AOSpine Trauma Knowledge Forum, the Thoracolumbar AOSpine Injury Score was developed. Results Beginning with 1 point for A1, groups A, B, and C were consecutively awarded an additional point (A1, 1 point; A2, 2 points; A3, 3 points); however, because of a significant increase in the severity between A3 and A4 and because the severity of A4 and B1 was similar, both A4 and B1 were awarded 5 points. An uneven stepwise increase in severity moving from N0 to N4, with a substantial increase in severity between N2 (nerve root injury with radicular symptoms) and N3 (incomplete spinal cord injury) injuries, was identified. Hence, each grade of neurologic injury was progressively given an additional point starting with 0 points for N0, and the substantial difference in severity between N2 and N3 injuries was recognized by elevating N3 to 4 points. Finally, 1 point was awarded to the M1 modifier (indeterminate posterolateral ligamentous complex injury). Conclusion The Thoracolumbar AOSpine Injury Score is an easy-to-use, data-driven metric that will allow for the development of a surgical algorithm to accompany the AOSpine Thoracolumbar Spine Injury Classification System.

The Influence of Spine Surgeons' Experience on the Classification and Intraobserver Reliability of the Novel AOSpine Thoracolumbar Spine Injury Classification System-An International Study

STUDY DESIGN

International validation study.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the influence of the spine surgeons' level of experience on the intraobserver reliability of the novel AOSpine Thoracolumbar Spine Injury Classification system, and the appropriate classification according to this system.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Wide variability has been demonstrated for intraobserver reliability of the AOSpine classification system. The spine surgeons' level of experience may play a crucial role in the appropriate classification of thoracolumbar fractures, and the degree of reproducibility of the same observer on separate occasions. However, this has not been previously investigated.

METHODS

After a training on the classification system, high quality CT images together with clinical data from 25 patients with thoracolumbar fractures were independently assessed by 100 spine surgeons from across the world on 2 different occasions, 1 month apart from each other. The spine surgeons were allocated to a subgroup, according to their years of experience. Intraobserver reliability was calculated for each individual surgeon and for each subgroup, using the Kappa statistics (κ). Descriptive statistics was used to describe any differences between the subgroups. Analysis of any misclassifications was performed by calculating sensitivity and specificity estimates.

RESULTS

Almost all surgeons demonstrated at least moderate intraobserver reliability. All surgeon subgroups demonstrated substantial reliability (κ = 0.67-0.69) for fracture subtype grading, and almost all subgroups demonstrated excellent reliability (κ = 0.79-0.83) for fracture morphology type regardless of subtype identified. In general, the fractures were most frequently misclassified by the most experienced surgeons. No major differences were observed among the subgroups when comparing the sensitivity and specificity rates.

CONCLUSION

This international study demonstrated that the spine surgeons' level of experience does not substantially influence the classification and intraobserver reliability of the recently described AOSpine Thoracolumbar Spine Injury Classification System.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

4.

Single-stage posterior vertebral column resection and internal fixation for old fracture-dislocations of thoracolumbar spine: a case series and systematic review

PURPOSE

To evaluate the efficacy of single-stage posterior vertebral column resection for old thoracolumbar fracture-dislocations with spinal cord injury.

METHODS

From January 2007 to June 2013, twelve male patients (average age, 32.6 years; range 19-57 years) with old fracture-dislocations of the thoracolumbar spine and spinal cord injury underwent single-stage posterior vertebral column resection and internal fixation. All patients were assessed for relief of the pain and restoration of neurologic function. Postoperative Cobb angle was measured and bone graft fusion was evaluated by X-ray. A systematic review of 25 studies evaluating surgical management of thoracolumbar fractures with spinal cord injuries was also performed.

RESULTS

From our case series, six of the nine patients with Frankel grade A had significant improvement in urination and defecation after surgery. The three patients with Frankel grades B and C had progression of 1-2 grades after surgery. Bony fusion was achieved and local back pain was relieved in all patients after surgery. From our systematic review of 25 studies, the majority of patients had improved back pain, the postoperative kyphotic angle was significantly reduced compared with pre-operative kyphotic angle.

CONCLUSION

Single-stage posterior vertebral column resection and internal fixation for old thoracolumbar fracture-dislocations is an ideal treatment allowing for thorough decompression, relief of pain, correction of deformities, and restoration of spinal stability.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV.

Evidence-Based Medicine of Traumatic Thoracolumbar Burst Fractures: A Systematic Review of Operative Management across 20 Years

Study Design Systematic literature review. Objective The management of traumatic thoracolumbar burst fractures (TLBF) remains challenging, and analyzing the levels of evidence (LOEs) for treatment practices can reform the decision-making process. However, no review has yet evaluated the operative management of traumatic thoracolumbar burst fractures with particular attention placed on LOE from an established methodology. The objective of the present study was to characterize the literature evidence for TLBF, specifically for operative management. Methods A comprehensive search of the English literature over the past 20 years was conducted using PubMed (MEDLINE). The inclusion criteria consisted of (1) traumatic burst fractures (2) in the thoracic or lumbar spine. Exclusion criteria included (1) osteoporotic burst fractures, (2) pathologic burst fractures, (3) cervical fractures, (4) biomechanical studies or those involving cadavers, and (5) computer-based studies. Studies were assigned an LOE and those meeting level 1 or 2 were included. Results From 1,138 abstracts, 272 studies met the criteria. Twenty-three studies (8.5%) met level 1 (n = 4, 1.5%) or 2 (n = 19, 7.0%) criteria. All 23 studies were reported. Conclusions The literature contains a high LOE to support the operative management of traumatic thoracolumbar burst fractures. For patients who are neurologically intact, a high LOE demonstrated similar functional outcomes, lower complication rates, and less costs with conservative management when compared with surgical management. There is a high LOE for short- or long-segment pedicle instrumentation without fusion and less invasive (percutaneous and paraspinal) approaches. Furthermore, the posterior approaches are associated with lower complications as opposed to the anterior or combined approaches.

Reliability analysis of the AOSpine thoracolumbar spine injury classification system by a worldwide group of naïve spinal surgeons

PURPOSE

The aims of this study were (1) to demonstrate the AOSpine thoracolumbar spine injury classification system can be reliably applied by an international group of surgeons and (2) to delineate those injury types which are difficult for spine surgeons to classify reliably.

METHODS

A previously described classification system of thoracolumbar injuries which consists of a morphologic classification of the fracture, a grading system for the neurologic status and relevant patient-specific modifiers was applied to 25 cases by 100 spinal surgeons from across the world twice independently, in grading sessions 1 month apart. The results were analyzed for classification reliability using the Kappa coefficient (κ).

RESULTS

The overall Kappa coefficient for all cases was 0.56, which represents moderate reliability. Kappa values describing interobserver agreement were 0.80 for type A injuries, 0.68 for type B injuries and 0.72 for type C injuries, all representing substantial reliability. The lowest level of agreement for specific subtypes was for fracture subtype A4 (Kappa = 0.19). Intraobserver analysis demonstrated overall average Kappa statistic for subtype grading of 0.68 also representing substantial reproducibility.

CONCLUSION

In a worldwide sample of spinal surgeons without previous exposure to the recently described AOSpine Thoracolumbar Spine Injury Classification System, we demonstrated moderate interobserver and substantial intraobserver reliability. These results suggest that most spine surgeons can reliably apply this system to spine trauma patients as or more reliably than previously described systems.

Operative compared with nonoperative treatment of a thoracolumbar burst fracture without neurological deficit: a prospective randomized study with follow-up at sixteen to twenty-two years

BACKGROUND

Studies comparing operative with nonoperative treatment of a stable burst fracture of the thoracolumbar junction in neurologically intact patients have not shown a meaningful difference at early follow-up. To our knowledge, longer-term outcome data have not before been presented.

METHODS

From 1992 to 1998, forty-seven consecutive patients with a stable thoracolumbar burst fracture and no neurological deficit were evaluated and randomized to one of two treatment groups: operative treatment (posterior or anterior arthrodesis) or nonoperative treatment (a body cast or orthosis). We previously reported the results of follow-up at an average of forty-four months. The current study presents the results of long-term follow-up, at an average of eighteen years (range, sixteen to twenty-two years). As in the earlier study, patients at long-term follow-up indicated the degree of pain on a visual analog scale and completed the Roland and Morris disability questionnaire, the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) questionnaire, and the Short Form-36 (SF-36) health survey. Work and health status were obtained, and patients were evaluated radiographically.

RESULTS

Of the original operatively treated group of twenty-four patients, follow-up data were obtained for nineteen; one patient had died, and four could not be located. Of the original nonoperatively treated group of twenty-three patients, data were obtained for eighteen; two patients had died, and three could not be located. The average kyphosis was not significantly different between the two groups (13° for those who received operative treatment compared with 19° for those treated nonoperatively). Median scores for pain (4 cm for the operative group and 1.5 cm for the nonoperative group; p = 0.003), ODI scores (20 for the operative group and 2 for the nonoperative group; p <0.001) and Roland and Morris scores (7 for the operative group and 1 for the nonoperative group; p = 0.001) were all significantly better in the group treated nonoperatively. Seven of eight SF-36 scores also favored nonoperative treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

While early analysis (four years) revealed few significant differences between the two groups, at long-term follow-up (sixteen to twenty-two years), those with a stable burst fracture who were treated nonoperatively reported less pain and better function compared with those who were treated surgically.

Clinical application of the paraspinal erector approach for spinal canal decompression in upper lumber burst fractures

Objective

Percutaneous pedicle screw fixation is commonly used for upper lumber burst fractures. The direct decompression remains challenging with this minimally invasive surgery. The objective was to evaluate a novel paraspinal erector approach for effective and direct decompression in patients with canal compromise and neurologic deficit.

Method

Patients (n = 21) with neurological deficiency and Denis B type upper lumbar burst fracture were enrolled in the study, including 14 cases in the L1 and 7 cases in the L2. The patients underwent removal of bone fragments from the spinal canal through intervertebral foramen followed by short-segment fixation. Evaluations included surgery-related, such as duration of surgery and blood loss, and 12-month follow-up, such as the kyphotic angle, the height ratio of the anterior edge of the vertebra, the ratio of sagittal canal compromise, visual analog scale (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and Frankel scores.

Results

All patients achieved direct spinal canal decompression using the paraspinal erector approach followed by percutaneous pedicle screw fixation. The mean operation time (SD) was 173 (23) min, and the mean (SD) blood loss was 301 (104) ml. Significant improvement was noted in the kyphotic angle, 26.2 ± 8.7 prior to operation versus 9.1 ± 4.7 at 12 months after operation (p <0.05); the height ratio of the anterior edge of the injured vertebra, 60 ± 16% versus 84 ± 9% (p <0.05); and the ratio of sagittal canal compromise, 46.5 ± 11.4% versus 4.3 ± 3.6% (p <0.05). Significant improvements in VAS (7.3 ± 1.2 vs. 1.9 ± 0.7, p <0.05), ODI (86.7 ± 5.8 vs. 16.7 ± 5.1, p <0.05), and Frankel scores were also noted.

Conclusions

The paraspinal erector approach was effective for direct spinal canal decompression with minimal injury in the paraspinal muscles or spine. Significant improvements in spinal function and prognostics were achieved after the percutaneous pedicle screw fixation.

Two-year follow-up evaluation of surgical treatment for thoracolumbar fracture-dislocation

STUDY DESIGN

A randomized, controlled clinical trial.

OBJECTIVE

This randomized controlled clinical trial was aimed at comparing the clinical outcomes of combined posteroanterior (P-A) fusion and transforaminal thoracic interbody fusion (TTIF) in cases of thoracolumbar fracture-dislocation.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

The optimal treatment strategy for thoracolumbar fracture-dislocation remains controversial.

METHODS

Sixty-one patients presenting with acute fracture-dislocation of the thoracolumbar joint between March 2010 and December 2011 were enrolled and randomly assigned to the P-A or TTIF group. The radiological outcome was assessed by acquiring radiographs in the standing position and computed tomographic scans. The clinical outcome was measured in terms of the American Spinal Injury Association score, visual analogue scale score, and Oswestry Disability Index. Moreover, we assessed the severity of overall morbidity and morbidity at the donor site in the 2 patient groups. The Student t and χ tests were used for the analysis of independent variables and categorical data, respectively.

RESULTS

Only 57 of the enrolled patients were available for the required 24-month follow-up period, 27 underwent TTIF and 30 underwent P-A fusion. Both treatments were similar with respect to the fusion rate, extent of decompression, loss of correction, rate of instrumentation failure, American Spinal Injury Association score, visual analogue scale score, and Oswestry Disability Index (P > 0.05). However, the blood loss, operating time, and rate of perioperative complications were greater in the P-A group than in the TTIF group (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

The clinical and radiological outcomes were similar for both the treatment procedures. However, our findings suggest that TTIF allows for safe interbody fusion and circumferential decompression, requires only a posterior approach, and is associated with a lower incidence of surgery-related complications.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

2.

The retrospective analysis of posterior short-segment pedicle instrumentation without fusion for thoracolumbar burst fracture with neurological deficit

This study aims to investigate the efficacy of posterior short-segment pedicle instrumentation without fusion in curing thoracolumbar burst fracture. All of the 53 patients were treated with short-segment pedicle instrumentation and laminectomy without fusion, and the restoration of retropulsed bone fragments was conducted by a novel custom-designed repositor (RRBF). The mean operation time and blood loss during surgery were analyzed; the radiological index and neurological status were compared before and after the operation. The mean operation time was 93 min (range: 62-110 min) and the mean intraoperative blood loss was 452 mL in all cases. The average canal encroachment was 50.04% and 10.92% prior to the surgery and at last followup, respectively (P < 0.01). The preoperative kyphotic angle was 17.2 degree (± 6.87 degrees), whereas it decreased to 8.42 degree (± 4.99 degrees) at last followup (P < 0.01). Besides, the mean vertebral body height increased from 40.15% (± 9.40%) before surgery to 72.34% (± 12.32%) at last followup (P < 0.01). 45 patients showed 1-2 grades improvement in Frankel's scale at last followup. This technique allows for satisfactory canal clearance and restoration of vertebral body height and kyphotic angle, and it may promote the recovery of neurological function. However, further research is still necessary to confirm the efficacy of this treatment.

Combination of percutaneous osteosynthesis and vertebroplasty of thoracolumbar split fractures under CT and fluoroscopy guidance: a new technique

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of our study was to evaluate the technical feasibility of the combination involving percutaneous screw fixation and vertebroplasty in split fractures of thoracolumbar spine.

METHODS

Institutional review board approval and informed consent were obtained. Ten consecutive adult patients who had posttraumatic vertebral split fractures (Magerl A2) were prospectively treated by an interventional radiologist under computed tomography and fluoroscopy guidance. Using a bilateral route under local anesthesia, one 4.0-mm cannulated screw was placed on one side to fix the fracture, and on the other side, vertebroplasty was performed. Follow-up ranging from 12 to 24 months was assessed using visual analog scale (VAS) and Oswestry disability index (ODI) RESULTS: Combined procedures were performed on thoracic and lumbar vertebrae, creating both osteosynthesis and cement bridge between the displaced fragment and the rest of the vertebral body. Mean VAS measurements ± standard deviation (SD) decreased from 7.5 ± 1.5 preoperatively to 3.2 ± 1.9 at 1 day, 2.1 ± 1.2 at 1 month, and 1.9 ± 1.4 at the last examination (P < 0.001). Mean ODI scores ± SD decreased from 65.3 ± 16.2, preoperatively, to 16.1 ± 5.0 at the final examination (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

This study suggests that type A2 vertebral fractures could be successfully stabilized by the combination of percutaneous osteosynthesis and vertebroplasty.