Comparison of pedicle screw fixation by four different posterior approaches for the treatment of type A thoracolumbar fractures without neurologic injury

Purpose

This study was designed to compare the pedicle screw fixation by four different posterior approaches for the treatment of type A thoracolumbar fractures without neurologic injury.

Methods

A total of 165 patients with type A thoracolumbar fractures without neurologic injury who received pedicle screw fixation by posterior approaches from February 2017 to August 2018 were enrolled in this study. They were further divided into the following four groups according to different posterior approaches: Open-C group (conventional open approach), Open-W group (Wiltse approach), MIS-F group (percutaneous approach with fluoroscopy guidance), and MIS-O group (percutaneous approach with O-arm navigation). The demographic data, clinical outcomes, and radiologic parameters were evaluated and compared among the four groups.

Results

There were no significant differences in age, gender, fracture segment, and follow-up time. The incision length, blood loss, hospital stay time, and VAS (Visual Analog Scale) and ODI (Oswestry Disability Index) scores at the early stage of post-operation were the worst in the Open-C group. The MIS-O group showed significantly higher accuracy rate of pedicle position than other groups. The preoperative and postoperative AVH (anterior vertebral height) and VWA (vertebral wedge angle) obtain obvious correction in all patients immediately after and 1 year post-operation. No difference was found among the four groups at the final radiographic follow-up.

Conclusions

The four different posterior approaches are effective in treating type A thoracolumbar fractures in our study. Each approach has its own individual strengths and weaknesses and therefore requires comprehensive consideration prior to use. Proper approaches selection is critical to patients.

Transoral Vertebroplasty of C2 Aggressive Hemangioma: A Clinical Case

The article describes a clinical case of surgical treatment of a patient with aggressive C2 vertebral hemangioma by vertebroplasty with a transoral approach.

Three-dimensional navigation (O-arm) versus fluoroscopy in the treatment of thoracic spinal stenosis with ultrasonic bone curette: A retrospective comparative study

Three-dimensional intraoperative navigation (O-arm) has been used for many years in spinal surgeries and has significantly improved its precision and safety. This retrospective study compared the efficacy and safety of spinal cord decompression surgeries performed with O-arm navigation and fluoroscopy. The clinical data of 56 patients with thoracic spinal stenosis treated from March 2015 to April 2017 were retrospectively analyzed. Spinal decompression was performed with O-arm navigation and ultrasonic bone curette in 29 patients, and with ultrasonic bone curette and fluoroscopy in 27 patients. Patients were followed-up at postoperative 1 month, 3 months, and the last clinic visit. The neurologic functions were assessed using the Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) Back Pain Evaluation Questionnaire. The accuracy of screw placement was examined using three-dimensional computed tomography (CT) on postoperative day 5. There was no significant difference in the incidences of intraoperative dural tear, nerve root injury, and spinal cord injury between the two groups. The two groups showed no significant difference in postoperative JOA scores (P > .05). The O-arm navigation group had significantly higher screw placement accuracy than the fluoroscopy group (P < .05). O-arm navigation is superior to fluoroscopy in the treatment of thoracic spinal stenosis with ultrasonic bone curette in terms of screw placement accuracy. However, the two surgical modes have similar rates of intraoperative complications and postoperative neurologic functions.