STUDY DESIGN: A randomized, controlled follow-up study. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to compare the results of anterior approach versus posterior approach with subtotal corpectomy, decompression, and reconstruction of spine in the treatment of thoracolumbar burst fractures. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Burst fractures are frequently associated with instability or neurological deficit. Anterior subtotal corpectomy, decompression, and reconstruction with instrumentation are an established method for a highly unstable burst fracture. In the past few years, subtotal corpectomy, decompression, and reconstruction of spine could be completed by posterior approach. Posterior segmental pedicle screw instrumentation, with its more rigid fixation and less technically demanding, could offer potential advantages. METHODS: A total of 64 patients with thoracolumbar burst fractures were divided into 2 groups randomly. Group A was treated by anterior approach and group B was treated by posterior approach with subtotal corpectomy, decompression, and reconstruction of spine. During the minimum 24 months (range, 24 to 72 mo) follow-up period, all patients were prospectively evaluated for clinical and radiologic outcomes. The intraoperative blood loss, operative time, complications of operation, pulmonary function, Frankel scale, and the American Spinal Injury Association (ASIA) motor score were used for clinical evaluation, whereas the heights of anterior edge of vertebral body and the Cobb angle were examined for radiologic outcome. RESULTS: All patients in this study achieved solid fusion, with significant neurological improvement. The intraoperative blood loss (P<0.05) and complications of operation were less, the operative time was shorter (P<0.05), and the pulmonary function after operation was better in the group B (P<0.05). The Frankel scale, the ASIA motor score, and the radiologic results were not significantly different (P<0.05) at all time points between the 2 groups A and B. But the 2 groups improved in their neurological function by approximately 1.3 Frankel grade and 15.6 ASIA motor scores at final follow-up. CONCLUSION: Anterior approach and posterior approach with subtotal corpectomy, decompression, and reconstruction of spine are sufficient for surgical treatment of thoracolumbar burst fractures. Less intraoperative blood loss and complications, shorter operative time, and better pulmonary function after operation are the significant advantages of posterior surgery.

BackgroundA prospective cohort study was performed to evaluate the clinical and radiological outcomes following posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) in patients treated with a PEEK cage compared to those treated with an autologous cage using the lumbar spinous process and laminae (ACSP).MethodsSixty-nine consecutive patients with lumbar degenerative disc disease were randomly assigned to either a PEEK cage (group A, n = 34) or an ACSP (group B, n = 35). Monosegmental PLIF was performed in all patients. Mean lumbar lordosis, mean disc height, visual analog scale (VAS) scores, functional outcomes, fusion rates and complication rates were recorded and compared. The patients were followed postoperatively for a minimum of 2 years.ResultsSuccessful radiographic fusion was documented in all patients. No flexion–extension hypermobility or pedicle screw loosening or breakage occurred during the follow-up period. No significant difference existed between the 2 groups when comparing the mean lumbar lordosis, mean disc height, visual analog scale (VAS) scores, functional outcomes, fusion rates or complication rates. Overall satisfactory results were achieved in both groups.ConclusionsThe results suggest that the ACSP appears to be equally as safe and effective as the PEEK cage.Trial registrationISRCTN25558534. Retrospectively registered 16/02/2016.

Minimally invasive unilateral pedicle screw fixation for the treatment of degenerative lumbar diseases has won the support of many surgeons. However, few data are available regarding clinical research on unilateral pedicle screw fixation associated with minimally invasive techniques for the treatment of lumbar spinal diseases. The purpose of this study was to evaluate clinical outcomes in a selected series of patients with lumbar degenerative diseases treated with minimally invasive unilateral vs classic bilateral pedicle screw fixation and lumbar interbody fusion. Patients in the unilateral group (n=43) underwent minimally invasive unilateral pedicle screw fixation with the Quadrant system (Medtronic, Memphis, Tennessee). The bilateral group (n=42) underwent bilateral instrumentation via the classic approach. Visual analog scale pain scores, Oswestry Disability Index scores, fusion rate, operative time, blood loss, and complications were analyzed. Mean operative time was 75 minutes in the unilateral group and 95 minutes in the bilateral group. Mean blood loss was 220 mL in the unilateral group and 450 mL in the bilateral group. Mean postoperative visual analog scale pain score was 3.10±0.16 in the unilateral group and 3.30±1.10 in the bilateral group. Mean postoperative Oswestry Disability Index score was 15.67±2.3 in the unilateral group and 14.93±2.6 in the bilateral group. Successful fusion was achieved in 92.34% of patients in the unilateral group and 93.56% of patients in the bilateral group. Minimally invasive unilateral pedicle screw fixation is an effective and reliable option for the surgical treatment of lumbar degenerative disease. It causes less blood loss, requires less operative time, and has a fusion rate comparable with that of conventional bilateral fixation.

We propose a management principle that bases the treatment of a combined C1-C2 fracture on the nature of the C2 fracture. This treatment strategy has yielded promising results as a satisfactory means for the management of combined C1-C2 fractures.