Anterior versus posterior approach in the management of AO Type B1 & B2 traumatic thoracolumbar fractures: A level 1 trauma centre study

Anterior, Posterior and Anterior-Posterior Approaches for the Treatment of Thoracolumbar Burst Fractures: A Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

PURPOSE

To compare the clinical and radiological results of the anterior approach versus the posterior approach versus the anterior-posterior approach for the treatment of thoracolumbar burst fractures.

METHODS

The network meta-analysis was performed in accordance with the PRISMA Statement. Electronic searches of PubMed and Embase were conducted up to June 22, 2023, for relevant randomized controlled trials. STATA13.0 was used to perform network meta-analysis. p < .05 was considered significant.

RESULTS

Nine RCTs with a total of 550 patients receiving surgical treatment in at least two of the three approaches, including anterior, posterior and anterior-posterior approaches, were included. The surgical duration and intraoperative bleeding volume in the posterior approach were significantly lower than those in the anterior (SMD, -1.72; 95% CI, -2.82, -0.62) and anterior-posterior approaches (SMD, 3.33; 95% CI, 1.65, 5.00). The surgical duration in the anterior approach was significantly lower than that in the anterior-posterior approach (SMD, 1.61; 95% CI, 0.12, 3.10). The Cobb angle in the anterior-posterior approach was significantly lower than that in the anterior approach (MD, -4.83; 95% CI, -9.60, -0.05). The VAS score in the posterior approach was significantly higher than that in the anterior approach (MD, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.55, 1.16) and anterior-posterior approach (MD, -0.84; 95% CI, -1.12, -0.55). No significant difference was identified among the three surgical approaches in implant failure rate and infection rate.

CONCLUSION

All three approaches were safe approaches with advantages and disadvantages. The selection of surgical approaches for the treatment of thoracolumbar burst fractures may be individualized.

Is open anterior advantageous to posterior decompression and reconstruction in fresh A3 to C3/AO type thoracolumbar junction fractures? A systematic review

INTRODUCTION

Surgical outcomes of open anterior and open posterior approaches, for thoracolumbar A3 to C3/AO type fractures, are compared.

METHODS

A PubMed search was conducted from 1990 to 2024 related to anterior, posterior, and combined approaches. Inclusion criteria: Fresh traumatic T10 to L2 fractures, age ≥13 years, ≥10 cases, minimum follow-up 6 months. Exclusion criteria: Cadaveric studies, pathological fractures, reviews, thoracoscopy-assisted, mini-open lateral (MOLA) and minimal invasive anterior or posterior approaches. Coleman Methodology Scores (CMS) (modified for spinal trauma) indicated potential selection bias in the selected studies. PRISMA guidelines were adapted.

RESULTS

Nineteen studies with 847 participants were selected. The average CMS quality score was fair. The anterior approach, although it better decompresses the compromised spinal canal, it is also associated with increased surgical complications compared to the posterior approach. The neurological outcome, the loss of correction and the reoperation rate, were similar to both approaches. This systematic review favors posterior approach.

CONCLUSIONS

The anterior approach is demanding and is associated with a higher rate of surgical complications compared to the posterior approach. The limitations of the selected studies included inconsistence in the: 1) approaches selection, 2) classifications of the fracture types and the neurological status and 3) variety of instrumentations used.

PROSPERO ID

CRD42023484222.

Risk Factors for Postoperative Complications After Surgical Treatment of Type B and C Injuries of the Thoracolumbar Spine

BACKGROUND

Unstable thoracolumbar spinal injuries benefit from surgical fixation. However, perioperative complications significantly affect outcomes in surgicallytreated spine patients. We evaluated associations between risk factors and postoperative complications in patients surgically treated for thoracolumbar spine fractures.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective multicenter study collating data from 21 spine centers across 9 countries on the treatment of AOSpine types B and C injuries of the thoracolumbar spine treated via a posterior approach. Comparative analysis was performed between patients with postoperative complications and those without. Univariate and multivariable analyses were performed.

RESULTS

Among 535 patients, at least 1 complication occurred in 43%. The most common surgical complication was surgical-site infection (6.9%), while the most common medical complication was urinary tract infection (13.8%). Among 136 patients with American Spinal Injury Association (ASIA) Impairment Scalelevel A disability, 77.9% experienced at least 1 complication. The rate of complications also rose sharply among patients waiting >3 days for surgery (P<0.001), peaking at 68.4% among patients waiting ≥30 days. On multivariable analysis, significant predictors of complications were surgery at a governmental hospital (odds ratio = 3.38, 95% confidence interval = 1.73-6.60), having ≥1 comorbid illness (2.44, 1.61-3.70), surgery delayed due to health instability (2.56, 1.50-4.37), and ASIA Impairment Scalelevel A (3.36, 1.78-6.35), while absence of impairment (0.39, 0.22-0.71), ASIAlevel E (0.39, 0.22-0.67) and, unexpectedly, delay caused by operating room unavailability (0.60, 0.36-0.99) were protective.

CONCLUSIONS

Types B and C thoracolumbar spine injuries are associated with a high risk of postoperative complications, especially common at governmental hospitals, and among patients with comorbidity, health instability, longer delays to surgery, and worse preoperative neurologic status.

Comparison of the Outcomes between AO Type B2 Thoracolumbar Fracture with and without Disc Injury after Posterior Surgery

Objective

The type AO B2 thoracolumbar fracture is a kind of flexion‐distraction injury and the effect of disc injury on treatment results of patients with B2 fracture remains unclear. The objective of the current study was to compare and analyze the outcomes in AO Type B2 thoracolumbar fracture patients with and without disc injuries in terms of the Cobb angle of kyphosis, the incidence of complication, and the rate of implant failure.

Methods

This is a retrospective study. Of the 486 patients with thoracolumbar fractures who underwent posterior fixation, 38 patients with AO type B2 injuries were included. All the patients were divided into two groups according to changes in the adjoining discs. Disc injury group A included 17 patients and no disc injury group included 21 patients. Clinical and radiologic parameters were evaluated before surgery, after surgery, and at follow‐up. Clinical outcomes included visual analogue scale (VAS) scores, incidence of complications, and incidence of implant failure. Radiologic assessment was accomplished with the Cobb angle (CA), local kyphosis (LK), percentage of anterior vertebral height (AVBH%), intervertebral disc height, and intervertebral disc angle. Fisher's precision probability tests were employed and chi square test were used to compare categorical variables. Paired sample t tests and independent‐sample t tests were used to compare continuous data.

Results

Disc injury mainly involved the cranial disc (15/19, 78.9%). The mean follow‐up period for the patients was 30.2 ± 20.1 months. No neurologic deterioration was reported in the patients at the last follow‐up. Radiological outcomes at the last follow‐up showed significant differences in the CA (18.59° ± 13.74° vs 8.16° ± 9.99°, P = 0.008), LK (12.74° ± 8.00° vs 6.55° ± 4.89°, P = 0.006), and %AVBH (77.16% vs 90.83%, P = 0.01) between the two groups.Implant failure occurred after posterior fixation in five patients with disc injury who did not undergo interbody fusion during the initial surgery. Additionally, in the subgroup analysis, interbody fusion in the implant failure group were significantly different than in the no implant failure group (0% vs 75%, P = 0.009).

Conclusions

AO B2 fracture patients with disc injury have higher risk of complications, especially implant failure after posterior surgery. Interbody fusion should be considered in AO type B2 fracture patients with disc injury.

Research of a Safe and Simplified Intertransverse Process Approach for the Lower Thoracic Interbody Surgery

Objective

To assess a safe surgical approach for intertransverse process lower thoracic intervertebral body fusion (ITIF) based on measurements from enhanced three‐dimensional CT reconstruction, cadaver simulated operation, and patient operation.

Methods

Enhanced three‐dimensional CT image reconstruction was performed for 20 healthy volunteers on thoracic segments T8–T12. The length of the transverse process (LTP), distance between the upper and lower transverse processes (DULTP), remote distance of the transverse process (RDTP), height of the extraforaminal intervertebral space (HEIS), and oblique diameter of the intervertebral space (ODIS) were measured and recorded. The blood vessels of the intertransverse lower thoracic region were observed, and their internal diameters were measured. The rib‐intervertebral space relationship for T10/11 and T11/12 was measured in 104 patients of the thoracic skeleton. Then, based on the data from the CT measurements, simulated surgery was performed on six human cadavers at the T11/12 level. An ankylosing spondylitis (AS) patient with a fracture of the T10/11 level was eventually operated on with the ITIF technique.

Results

No significant difference was found between the lengths of the left and right thoracic transverse processes. The relationship of the values of the LTP and RDTP for the measured vertebrae were found to be as follows:T8 > T9 > T10 > T11 > T12. For HEIS and DULTP, T8–9 < T9–10 < T10–11 < T11–12. The results for the ODIS were as follows: T8–T9 < T9–T10 < T10–T11 < T11–T12. The blood vessel inner diameter of T11–12 was less than that of T10–11, while there was no significant difference between the diameters for T8–9 and T11–12. Almost half of the volunteer's T10/11 intervertebral spaces were covered posteriorly by the 11th rib (45.19% on left and 41.35% on right), while for most patients, the T11/12 intervertebral space was not covered by the 12th rib (98.08%). According to the cadaver experiments, intervertebral bone grafting and ipsilateral pedicle screw fixation were performed to simulate the operation. One patient with a combined AS and T10/11 fracture was then operated on with the ITIF technique and followed up for 3 years with satisfactory results.

Conclusion

As verified by 3D CT reconstruction measurements, cadaver simulation surgery and patient operation with follow‐up, the intertransverse process approach for some T10/T11 and almost all T11/T12 segments is a safe surgical pathway for operations such as ITIF, fracture bone grafting, clearance of focal lesions.

Double-level noncontiguous thoracic Chance fractures treated with percutaneous stabilization: illustrative case

BACKGROUND

Chance fractures are unstable due to horizontal extension of the injury, disrupting all three columns of the vertebra. Since being first described in 1948, Chance fractures have been commonly found at a single level near the thoracolumbar junction. Noncontiguous double-level Chance fractures that result from a single traumatic event are rarely reported in the literature.

OBSERVATIONS

The authors report a case of an 18-year-old male who presented to the emergency department after a rollover motor vehicle accident. The patient complained of severe back pain when at rest and had no neurological deficits. Computed tomography revealed two unstable Chance fractures of bony subtype located at T6 and T11. The patient underwent percutaneous stabilization from T4 to T12. The postoperative assessment revealed continued 5/5 power bilaterally in all extremities, back pain, and the ability to ambulate with a walker. At 3 months after the operation, clinical assessment revealed no significant back pain and the ability to walk independently. Imaging confirmed stable fixation of the spine with no acute osseous or hardware complications.

LESSONS

This report complements previous studies demonstrating support for more extensive stabilization for such unique fractures. Additionally, rapid radiological imaging is needed to identify the full injury and lead patients to appropriate treatment.

A Finite Element Study on the Treatment of Thoracolumbar Fracture with a New Spinal Fixation System

Objective

In this study, the mechanical properties of the new spinal fixation system (NSFS) in the treatment of thoracolumbar fractures were evaluated by the finite element analysis method, so as to provide a mechanical theoretical basis for the later biomechanical experiments and clinical experiments.

Methods

T12-L2 bone model was constructed to simulate L1 vertebral fracture, and three models of internal fixation systems were established on the basis of universal spinal system (USS): Model A: posterior short-segment fixation including the fractured vertebra (PSFFV); Model B: short-segment pedicle screw fixation (SSPF); Model C: new spinal fixation system (NSFS). After assembling the internal fixation system and fracture model, the finite element analysis was carried out in the ANSYS Workbench 18.0 software, and the stress of nail rod system, fracture vertebral body stress, vertebral body mobility, and vertebral body displacement were recorded in the three models.

Results

The peak values of internal fixation stress, vertebral body stress, vertebral body maximum displacement, and vertebral body maximum activity in Model C were slightly smaller than those in Model B.

Conclusions

Compared with the traditional internal fixation system, the new spinal internal fixation system may have the mechanical advantage and can provide sufficient mechanical stability for thoracolumbar fractures.