Skip to main content
Log in

Low thoracic and lumbar burst fractures: radiographic and functional outcomes

  • Original Article
  • Published:
European Spine Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Twenty patients with thoracolumbar burst fractures (type A3 in the classification of Magerl et al.) were studied prospectively for the evaluation of clinical, radiographic and functional results. The patients were submitted to surgical treatment by posterior arthrodesis, posterior fixation and autologous transpedicular graft. The patients were followed up for 2 years after surgery and assessed on the basis of clinical (pain, neurologic deficit, postoperative infection), radiographic (load sharing classification, Farcy´s sagittal index of the fractured segment, relation between traumatic vertebral body height and the adjacent vertebrae (compression percentage), height of the intervertebral disk proximal and distal to the fractured vertebra, rupture or loosening of the implants) and functional (return to work, SF-36) criteria. Two patients presented a marked loss of correction and required the placement of an anterior support graft. Pain assessment revealed that eight patients (44%) had no pain; four (22%) had occasional pain, three (17%) moderate pain, and three (17%) severe pain. According to the classification of Frankel et al., 17 patients persisted as Frankel E and one patient presented improvement of one degree, becoming Frankel D. The mean value of Farcy´s sagittal index of the injured vertebral segment was 20.67° ± 6.15° (range 8°–32°) during the preoperative period, 11.22° ± 8.09° (range −5° to 21°) during the immediate postoperative period, and 14.22° ± 7.37° (range 3°–25°) at late evaluation. There was a statistically significant difference between the immediate postoperative values and the preoperative and late postoperative values. The compression percentage of the fractured vertebral body ranged from 9.1 to 60 (mean 28.81 ± 11.51) during the preoperative period, from 0 to 60 (mean: 15.59 ± 14.49) during the immediate postoperative period, and from 8 to 60 (mean: 25.9 ± 13.02) at late evaluation. There was a statistically significant difference between the preoperative and postoperative values and between the postoperative and late postoperative values. The height of the proximal intervertebral disk ranged from 6 to 14 mm (mean 8.44 ± 2.66) during the preoperative period, from 6 to 15 mm (mean 10 ± 2.30) during the immediate postoperative period, and from 0 to 11 mm (mean 7.22 ± 2.55) during the late postoperative period. A significant difference was observed between the immediate postoperative values and the preoperative and late postoperative values. The height of the intervertebral disk distal to the fractured vertebra ranged from 7 to 16 mm (mean 9.94 ± 2.64) during the preoperative period, from 5 to 18 mm (mean 11.61 ± 3.29) during the immediate postoperative period, and from 2 to 14 mm (mean 9.72 ± 3.17) during the late postoperative period. There was a significant difference between the immediate postoperative values and the preoperative and late postoperative values. Except for the height of the intervertebral disk proximal to the fractured vertebra, no correlation was detected between the clinical, functional and radiologic results. The results observed in the present study indicate that other, still incompletely defined parameters influence the functional result of thoracolumbar burst fractures.

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

Access this article

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Been HD, Bouma GJ (1999) Comparison of two types of surgery for thoracolumbar burst fractures: Combined anterior and posterior stabilisation vs posterior instrumentation only. Acta Neurochir 1999:349–357

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Briem D, Linhart D, Lehmann W, Bullinger M, Schoder V, Meenen NM, Windolf J, Rueger JM (2003) Investigation of the health-related quality of life after a dorso ventral stabilization of the thoracolumbar junction. Unfallchirurg 106:625–632

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Defino HL, Rodriguez-Fuentes AE (1998) Treatment of fractures of the thoracolumbar spine by combined anteroposterior fixation using the Harms method. Eur Spine J 7:187–194

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Defino HL, Scarparo P (2005) Fractures of thoracolumbar spine: monosegmental fixation. Injury 36(Suppl 2):B90–B97

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Farcy JP, Weidenbaunn M, Glassman SD (1990) Sagittal index in management of thoracolumbar burst fractures. Spine 15:958–965

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Frankel HL, Hancock DO, Hyslop G, Melzak J, Michaelis LS, Ungar GH, Vernon JD, Walsh JJ (1969) The value of postural reduction in the initial management of closed injuries of the spine with paraplegia and tetraplegia. I. Paraplegia 7:179–192

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Furderer S, Wenda K, Thiem N, Hachenberger R, Eysel P (2001) Traumatic intervertebral disc lesion–magnetic resonance imaging as a criterion for or against intervertebral fusion. Eur Spine J 10:154–163

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Gatchel RJ, Mayer T, Dersh J, Robinson R, Polatin P (1999) The association of the SF-36 health status survey with 1-year socioeconomic outcomes in a chronically disabled spinal disorder population. Spine 24:2162–2170

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Knop C, Fabian HF, Bastian L, Blauth M (2001) Late results of thoracolumbar fractures after posterior instrumentation and transpedicular bone grafting. Spine 26:88–99

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Knop C, Fabian HF, Bastian L, Rosenthal H, Lange U, Zdichavsky M, Blauth M (2002) Fate of the transpedicular intervertebral bone graft after posterior stabilisation of thoracolumbar fractures. Eur Spine J 11:251–257

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Korovessis P, Baikousis A, Zacharatos S, Petsinis G, Koureas G, Iliopoulos P (2006) Combined anterior plus posterior stabilization versus posterior short-segment instrumentation and fusion for mid-lumbar (L2–L4) burst fractures. Spine 31:859–868

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Kraemer WJ, Schemitsch EH, Lever J, McBroom RJ, McKee MD, Waddell JP (1996) Functional outcome of thoracolumbar burst fractures without neurological deficit. J Orthop Trauma 10:541–544

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Leferink VJ, Keizer HJ, Oosterhuis JK, van der Sluis CK, ten Duis HJ (2003) Functional outcome in patients with thoracolumbar burst fractures treated with dorsal instrumentation and transpedicular cancellous bone grafting. Eur Spine J 12:261–267

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Lu YM, Hutton WC, Gharpuray VM (1996) Can variations in intervertebral disc height affect the mechanical function of the disc? Spine 21:2208–2216

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Magerl F, Aebi M, Gertzbein SD, Harms J, Nazarian S (1994) A comprehensive classification of thoracic and lumbar injuries. Eur Spine J 3:184–201

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. McLain RF (2004) Functional outcomes after surgery for spinal fractures: return to work and activity. Spine 29:470–477

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Natarajan RN, Ke JH, Andersson GB (1994) A model to study the disc degeneration process. Spine 19:259–265

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Parker JW, Lane JR, Karaikovic EE, Gaines RW (2000) Successful short-segment instrumentation and fusion for thoracolumbar spine fractures: a consecutive 41/2-year series. Spine 25:1157–1170

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Petersilge CA, Emery SE (1996) Thoracolumbar burst fracture: evaluating stability. Semin Ultrasound CT MR 17:105–113

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Steib JP, Aoui M, Mitulescu A, Bogosin I, Chiffolot X, Cognet JM (2006) Thotacolumbar fractures surgically treated by “in situ” contouring. Eur Spine J 12:1823–1832

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Thomas KC, Bailey CS, Dvorak MF, Kwon B Fisher (2006) Comparison of operative and nonoperative treatment for thoracolumbar burst fractures in patients without neurological deficit: a systematic review. J Neurosurg Spine 4:351–358

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Tropiano P, Huang RC, Louis CA, Poitout DG, Louis RP (2003) Functional and radiographic outcome of thoracolumbar and lumbar burst fractures managed by closed orthopaedic reduction and casting. Spine 28:2459–2465

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. van der Roer N, de Lange ES, Bakker FC, de Vet HC, van Tulder MW (2005) Management of traumatic thoracolumbar fractures: a systematic review of the literature. Eur Spine J 14:527–534

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Verlaan JJ, Diekerhof CH, Buskens E, van der Tweel I, Verbout AJ, Dhert WJ, Oner FC (2004) Surgical treatment of traumatic fractures of the thoracic and lumbar spine: a systematic review of the literature on techniques, complications, and outcome. Spine 29:803–814

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Wang JL, Panjabi MM, Kato Y, Nguyen C (2002) Radiography cannot examine disc injuries secondary to burst fracture: quantitative discomanometry validation. Spine 27:235–240

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. White AA, Panjabi MM (1978) Clinical biomechanics of the spine. J. B. Lippincoatt, Philadelphia, p 534

    Google Scholar 

  28. Wood K, Buttermann G, Mehbod A, Garvey T, Jhanjee R, Sechriest V, Butterman G (2003) Operative compared with nonoperative treatment of a thoracolumbar burst fracture without neurological deficit. A prospective, randomized study. J Bone Joint Surg Am 85-A:773–781

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Helton L. A. Defino.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Defino, H.L.A., Canto, F.R. Low thoracic and lumbar burst fractures: radiographic and functional outcomes. Eur Spine J 16, 1934–1943 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-007-0406-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-007-0406-y

Keywords

Navigation