Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Die Koexistenz der Spinalkanalstenose in der Alterstraumatologie

The coexistence of spinal canal stenosis in fragility fractures of the spine

  • Leitthema
  • Published:
Der Orthopäde Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Zusammenfassung

Hintergrund

In der alterstraumatologischen Versorgung von Wirbelkörperfrakturen sind degenerative Prozesse der Bewegungssegmente häufig eine begleitende Pathologie. Diese führen pathophysiologisch zu einer möglichen Stenosierung neurogener Strukturen. Manifestiert sich diese vor einem Frakturgeschehen mit einem klinisch signifikanten Krankheitsbild, kann diese Koexistenz einer Spinalkanalstenose einen relevanten Einfluss auf die Verletzung nehmen oder die Behandlung der Fraktur erschweren.

Ziel

Ziel dieser Arbeit ist die differenzierte Darstellung der unterschiedlichen Pathophysiologie und ihre Zusammenführung hinsichtlich der klinischen Diagnostik und Therapieoptionen.

Differenzialdiagnose

Die Differenzialdiagnostik dieser unterschiedlichen Pathologien ist im akuten Schmerzgeschehen der Fraktur schwierig und wird im klinischen Alltag häufig unzureichend gewürdigt. Die Ätiologie und Pathophysiologie beider Entitäten zeigen in mehreren Aspekten eine Kongruenz, die eine gemeinsame Behandlung ermöglicht. Bei Indikationsstellung zur Dekompression einer stenosierenden Fraktur kann eine vorbestehende relevante Stenose in gleicher Sitzung adressiert werden. Im Umkehrschluss kann eine signifikante degenerative Stenose während einer Frakturbehandlung erst zur Indikation einer Dekompression führen.

Abstract

Background

In trauma care of fragility fractures of the spine, degenerative stenosis is often seen as an accompanying pathology. This may lead to a possible compression of neurogenic structures. The stenosis of the spinal canal can manifest itself with clinically significant complaints before the fracture occurs. This coexistence may have an impact on the injury itself or may provoke a complicated treatment of the fracture.

Aim

The aim of this work is to differentiate these pathophysiologies and their merger in terms of clinical diagnostics and treatment options.

Differential diagnosis

The differential diagnosis is difficult and is often inadequately appreciated in everyday clinical life. The etiology and pathophysiology of both entities show, in several aspects, a congruence that enables joint treatment. If the indication is set for the decompression of a stenosing fracture, a pre-existing relevant stenosis can be addressed in the same session. Conversely, significant degenerative stenosis accompanying a fracture may lead to the indication of decompression.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Abb. 1
Abb. 2
Abb. 3
Abb. 4
Abb. 5
Abb. 6

Abbreviations

ASIA:

American Spinal Injury Association

DGU :

Deutsche Gesellschaft für Unfallchirurgie

OF :

Osteoporotische Fraktur

Literatur

  1. Beck M, Mittlmeier T (2008) Surgical treatment of thoracolumbar fractures. Trauma Berufskrankh 10(Suppl 2):182–186

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Benoist M (2002) The natural history of lumbar degenerative spinal stenosis. Joint Bone Spine 69:450–457

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Blattert TR, Schnake KJ, Gonschorek O et al (2018) Nonsurgical and surgical management of osteoporotic vertebral body fractures: Recommendation of the spine section of the German Society for Orthopaedics and Trauma. Global Spine J 8(2 Suppl):50S–55S

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Braakman R, Fontijne WPJ, Zeegers R et al (1991) Neurological deficit in injuries of the thoracic and lumbar spine. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 111(1/2):11–17

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Bradford DS, McBride GG (1987) Surgical management of thoracolumbar spine fractures with incomplete neurologic deficits. Clin Orthop Relat Res 218:201–216

    Google Scholar 

  6. Clohisy JC, Akbarnia BA, Buchholz RD et al (1992) Neurologic recovery associated with anterior decompression of spine fractures at the thoracolumbar junction (T12-L1). Spine 17(8 Suppl):S325–S330

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Dall BE, Stauffer ES (1988) Neurologic injury and recovery patterns in burst fractures at the T12 or L1 motion segment. Clin Orthop Relat Res 233:171–176

    Google Scholar 

  8. de Klerk LW, Fontijne WP, Stijnen T et al (1999) Spontaneous remodeling oft he spinal canal after conservative management of thoracolumbar burst fractures. Spine 23(9):1057–1060

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Hashimoto T, Kaneda K, Abumi K (1988) Relationship between traumatic spinal canal stenosis and neurologic deficits in thoracolumbar burst fractures. Spine 13:1268–1272

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Hernond WA, Herrlin K, Hägglung G et al (1988) Neurologic return versus cross-sectional canal area in incompletethoracolumbar spinal cord injuries. J Trauma 28:680–683

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Kinoshita VR, Nagata Y, Ueda H et al (1993) Conservative treatment of burst fractures of the thoracolumbar and lumbar spine. Paraplegia 31:58–56

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Lemons VR, Wagner FC Jr, Montesano PX (1992) Management of thoracolumbar fractures with accompanaying neurological injury. Neurosurgery 30(5):667–671

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Maynard FM Jr, Bracken MB, Creasey G et al (1997) International standards for neurological and functional classification of the spinal cord injury. American Spinal Injury Association. Spinal Cord 35(5):266–274

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Meves R, Avanzi O (2005) Correlation between neurological deficit and spinal canal compromise in 198 patients with thoracolumbar and lumbar fractures. Spine 30:787–791

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Miyashita T, Ataka H, Tanno T (2012) Clinical results of posterior stabilization without decompression for thoracolumbar burst fractures: Is decompression necessary? Neurosurg Rev 35:447–455

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Mohanty SP, Venkatram N (2002) Does neurological recovery in thoracolumbar and lumbar burst fractures depend on the extent of canal compromise? Spinal Cord 40:295–299

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Pishnamaz M, Lichte P, Sellei RM et al (2015) Percutaneous stabilization oft he thoracic and lumbar spine with active interoperative reduction. Oper Orthop Traumatol 27:439–447

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Porter RW (1996) Spinal stenosis and neurogenic claudication. Spine 21:2046–2052

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Schnake KJ, Hahn P, Franck A et al (2013) Development of a classification system (OF-classification) and of a score for therapeutic decision making (OF-score) for osteoporotic thoracolumbar fractures. Eur Spine J 22:2590

    Google Scholar 

  20. Sjöström L, Jacobsson O, Karlström G et al (1994) Spinal canal remodeling after stabilization of thoracolumbar burst fractures. Eur Spine J 10:55–63

    Google Scholar 

  21. Verbiest H (1954) A radicular syndrome from developmental narrowing of the lumbar vertebral canal. J Bone Joint Surg Br 36:230–237

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Verbiest H (1979) The significance and principles of computerized axial tomography in idiopathic developmental stenosis of the bony lumbar vertebral canal. Spine 4:369–378

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Wessberg P, Wang Y, Irstam L et al (2001) The effect of surgery and remodelling on spinal canal measurements after thoracolumbar burst fractures. Eur Spine J 10:55–63

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Yazici M, Atilla B, Tepe S et al (1996) Spinal canal remodeling in burst fractures of the thoracolumbar spine: A computerized tomographic comparison between operative and nonoperative treatment. J Spinal Disord 9:409–413

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Richard Martin Sellei.

Ethics declarations

Interessenkonflikt

R.M. Sellei und P. Kobbe geben an, dass kein Interessenkonflikt besteht.

Dieser Beitrag beinhaltet keine von den Autoren durchgeführten Studien an Menschen oder Tieren.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sellei, R.M., Kobbe, P. Die Koexistenz der Spinalkanalstenose in der Alterstraumatologie. Orthopäde 48, 837–843 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00132-019-03773-y

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00132-019-03773-y

Schlüsselwörter

Keywords

Navigation