Skip to main content

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

Abstract

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

References

  1. McCormack T, Karaikovic E, Gaines RW (1994) The load sharing classification of spine fractures. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 19(15):1741–1744

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Reinhold M, Knop C, Beisse R, Audige L, Kandziora F, Pizanis A, Pranzl R, Gercek E, Schultheiss M, Weckbach A, Buhren V, Blauth M (2010) Operative treatment of 733 patients with acute thoracolumbar spinal injuries: comprehensive results from the second, prospective, Internet-based multicenter study of the Spine Study Group of the German Association of Trauma Surgery. Eur Spine J 19(10):1657–1676. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-010-1451-5

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Spiegl UJ, Josten C, Devitt BM, Heyde CE (2017) Incomplete burst fractures of the thoracolumbar spine: a review of literature. Eur Spine J. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-017-5126-3

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Uchida K, Kobayashi S, Matsuzaki M, Nakajima H, Shimada S, Yayama T, Sato R, Baba H (2006) Anterior versus posterior surgery for osteoporotic vertebral collapse with neurological deficit in the thoracolumbar spine. Eur Spine J 15(12):1759–1767. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-006-0106-z

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Uchida K, Nakajima H, Yayama T, Miyazaki T, Hirai T, Kobayashi S, Chen K, Guerrero AR, Baba H (2010) Vertebroplasty-augmented short-segment posterior fixation of osteoporotic vertebral collapse with neurological deficit in the thoracolumbar spine: comparisons with posterior surgery without vertebroplasty and anterior surgery. J Neurosurg Spine 13(5):612–621. https://doi.org/10.3171/2010.5.SPINE09813

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Denis F (1983) The three column spine and its significance in the classification of acute thoracolumbar spinal injuries. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 8(8):817–831

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Sander AL, Laurer H, Lehnert T, El Saman A, Eichler K, Vogl TJ, Marzi I (2013) A clinically useful classification of traumatic intervertebral disk lesions. AJR Am J Roentgenol 200(3):618–623. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.12.8748

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Adams MA, McNally DS, Dolan P (1996) ‘Stress’ distributions inside intervertebral discs. The effects of age and degeneration. J Bone Jt Surg Br 78(6):965–972

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Josten C, Heyde CE, Spiegl UJ (2016) Complex Pathologies of the Spine: Trauma meets Degeneration. Zeitschrift fur Orthopadie und Unfallchirurgie. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0042-108344

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Spiegl U, Jarvers JS, Heyde CE, Josten C (2017) Osteoporotic vertebral body fractures of the thoracolumbar spine: indications and techniques of a 360 degrees -stabilization. Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg 43(1):27–33. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00068-016-0751-9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Vaccaro AR, Oner C, Kepler CK, Dvorak M, Schnake K, Bellabarba C, Reinhold M, Aarabi B, Kandziora F, Chapman J, Shanmuganathan R, Fehlings M, Vialle L, Injury AOSC, Trauma Knowledge F (2013) AOSpine thoracolumbar spine injury classification system: fracture description, neurological status, and key modifiers. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 38(23):2028–2037. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e3182a8a381

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. WHO (1996) Cancer pain relief: with a guide to opioid availability. World Health Organization, Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  13. Ellert U, Kurth B-M (2004) Methodological views on the SF-36 summary scores based on the adult German population. Bundesgesundheitsblatt Gesundheitsforschung Gesundheitsschutz 47:1027–1032

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Hoffmann C, Spiegl UJ, Hauck S, Buhren V, Gonschorek O (2013) What is the effect of ventral thoracoscopic spondylodesis (VTS) on elderly patients and what is the medium-term outcome?. Zeitschrift fur Orthopadie Unfallchirurgie 151(3):257–263. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0032-1328522

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Riesner HJ, Kiupel K, Lang P, Stuby F, Friemert B, Palm HG (2016) Clinical relevance of cement leakage after radiofrequency kyphoplasty vs. balloon kyphoplasty: a prospective randomised study. Zeitschrift fur Orthopadie Unfallchirurgie 154(4):370–376. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0042-104069

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Duval-Beaupere G, Schmidt C, Cosson P (1992) A Barycentremetric study of the sagittal shape of spine and pelvis: the conditions required for an economic standing position. Ann Biomed Eng 20(4):451–462

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Sun XY, Zhang XN, Hai Y (2017) Percutaneous versus traditional and paraspinal posterior open approaches for treatment of thoracolumbar fractures without neurologic deficit: a meta-analysis. Eur Spine J 26(5):1418–1431. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-016-4818-4

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Kubosch D, Kubosch EJ, Gueorguiev B, Zderic I, Windolf M, Izadpanah K, Sudkamp NP, Strohm PC (2016) Biomechanical investigation of a minimally invasive posterior spine stabilization system in comparison to the universal spinal system (USS). BMC Musculoskelet Disord 17:134. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-016-0983-1

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Sander AL, Lehnert T, El Saman A, Eichler K, Marzi I, Laurer H (2014) Outcome of traumatic intervertebral disk lesions after stabilization by internal fixator. AJR Am J Roentgenol 203(1):140–145. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.13.11590

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Wood KB, Buttermann GR, Phukan R, Harrod CC, Mehbod A, Shannon B, Bono CM, Harris MB (2015) 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. J Bone Jt Surg 97(1):3–9. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.N.00226

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Siebenga J, Leferink VJ, Segers MJ, Elzinga MJ, Bakker FC, Haarman HJ, Rommens PM, ten Duis HJ, Patka P (2006) Treatment of traumatic thoracolumbar spine fractures: a multicenter prospective randomized study of operative versus nonsurgical treatment. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 31(25):2881–2890

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Scholz M, Kandziora F, Tschauder T, Kremer M, Pingel A (2017) Prospective randomized controlled comparison of posterior vs. posterior-anterior stabilization of thoracolumbar incomplete cranial burst fractures in neurological intact patients: the RASPUTHINE pilot study. Eur Spine J. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-017-5356-4

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Spiegl UJ, Jarvers JS, Heyde CE, Glasmacher S, Von der Hoh N, Josten C (2015) Delayed indications for additive ventral treatment of thoracolumbar burst fractures: What correction loss is to be expected. Der Unfallchirurg. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00113-015-0056-1

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ulrich J. Spiegl.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Spiegl, U.J., Devitt, B.M., Kasivskiy, I. et al. 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. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 138, 1407–1414 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-018-2993-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-018-2993-y

Keywords

  • Vertebral body fracture
  • Thoracolumbar spine
  • Combined anterior and posterior stabilization
  • Hybrid stabilization
  • Burst fracture