No abstract

Study Design:Expert opinion.Objectives:Osteoporotic vertebral fractures are of increasing medical importance. For an adequate treatment strategy, an easy and reliable classification is needed.Methods:The working group “Osteoporotic Fractures” of the Spine Section of the German Society for Orthopaedics and Trauma (DGOU) has developed a classification system (OF classification) for osteoporotic thoracolumbar fractures. The consensus decision followed an established pathway including review of the current literature.Results:The OF classification consists of 5 groups: OF 1, no vertebral deformation (vertebral edema); OF 2, deformation with no or minor (<1/5) involvement of the posterior wall; OF 3, deformation with distinct involvement (>1/5) of the posterior wall; OF 4, loss of integrity of the vertebral frame or vertebral body collapse or pincer-type fracture; OF 5, injuries with distraction or rotation. The interobserver reliability was substantial (κ = .63).Conclusions:The proposed OF classification is easy to use and provides superior clinical differentiation of the typical osteoporotic fracture morphologies.

Study Design:Prospective clinical cohort study (data collection); expert opinion (recommendation development).Objectives:Treatment options for nonsurgical and surgical management of osteoporotic vertebral body fractures are widely differing. Based on current literature, the knowledge of the experts, and their classification for osteoporotic fractures (OF classification) the Spine Section of the German Society for Orthopaedics and Trauma has now introduced general treatment recommendations.Methods:a total of 707 clinical cases from 16 hospitals were evaluated. An OF classification–based score was developed to guide in the option of nonsurgical versus surgical management. For every classification type, differentiated treatment recommendations were deduced. Diagnostic prerequisites for reproducible treatment recommendations were defined: conventional X-rays with consecutive follow-up images (standing position whenever possible), magnetic resonance imaging, and computed tomography scan. OF classification allows for upgrading of fracture severity during the course of radiographic follow-up. The actual classification type is decisive for the score.Results:A score of less than 6 points advocates nonsurgical management; more than 6 points recommend surgical management. The primary goal of treatment is fast and painless mobilization. Because of expected comorbidities in this age group, minimally invasive procedures are being preferred. As a general rule, stability is more important than motion preservation. It is mandatory to restore the physiological loading capacity of the spine. If the patient was in a compensated unbalanced state at the time of fracture, reconstruction of the individual prefracture sagittal profile is sufficient. Instrumentation technique has to account for compromised bone quality. We recommend the use of cement augmentation or high purchase screws. The particular situations of injuries with neurological impairment; necessity to fuse; multiple level fractures; consecutive and adjacent fractures; fractures in ankylosing spondylitis are being addressed separately.Conclusions:The therapeutic recommendations presented here provide a reliable and reproducible basis to decide for treatment choices available. However, intermediate clinical situations remain with a score of 6 points allowing for both nonsurgical and surgical options. As a result, individualized treatment decisions may still be necessary. In the next step, the recommendations presented will be further evaluated in a multicenter controlled clinical trial.

No abstract

BackgroundNon-unions are severe complications in orthopaedic trauma care and occur in 10% of all fractures. The golden standard for the treatment of ununited fractures includes open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) as well as augmentation with autologous-bone-grafting. However, there is morbidity associated with the bone-graft donor site and some patients offer limited quantity or quality of autologous-bone graft material. Since allogene bone-grafts are introduced on the market, this comparative study aims to evaluate healing characteristics of ununited bones treated with ORIF combined with either iliac-crest-autologous-bone-grafting (ICABG) or demineralized-bone-matrix (DBM).Methods and resultsFrom 2000 to 2006 out of sixty-two consecutive patients with non-unions presenting at our Level I Trauma Center, twenty patients had ununited diaphyseal fractures of long bones and were treated by ORIF combined either by ICABG- (n = 10) or DBM-augmentation (n = 10). At the time of index-operation, patients of the DBM-group had a higher level of comorbidity (ASA-value: p = 0.014). Mean duration of follow-up was 56.6 months (ICABG-group) and 41.2 months (DBM-group). All patients were clinically and radiographically assessed and adverse effects related to bone grafting were documented. The results showed that two non-unions augmented with ICABG failed osseous healing (20%) whereas all non-unions grafted by DBM showed successful consolidation during the first year after the index operation (p = 0.146). No early complications were documented in both groups but two patients of the ICABG-group suffered long-term problems at the donor site (20%) (p = 0.146). Pain intensity were comparable in both groups (p = 0.326). However, patients treated with DBM were more satisfied with the surgical procedure (p = 0.031).ConclusionWith the use of DBM, the costs for augmentation of the non-union-site are more expensive compared to ICABG (calculated difference: 160 €/case). Nevertheless, this study demonstrated that the application of DBM compared to ICABG led to an advanced outcome in the treatment of non-unions and simultaneously to a decreased quantity of adverse effects. Therefore we conclude that DBM should be offered as an alternative to ICABG, in particular to patients with elevated comorbidity and those with limited availability or reduced quality of autologous-bone graft material.