Operative versus non-operative treatment for thoracolumbar burst fractures without neurological deficit

Letters to the editor: Validating the Thoracolumbar Injury Classification and Severity Score

“…1,2,7 We do agree with the great concern voiced by the authors for development of longterm kyphosis. However, we believe that symptomatic posttraumatic deformity is secondary to a misdiagnosis of PLC injuries in unstable burst fractures or in misdiagnosed distraction injury patterns.…”

“…In addition, an age-matched nonoperative group would prove beneficial as well. Given the literature available, which illustrates largely equivocal rates of radiographic and clinical adjacent-segment pathology, [2][3][4][5]7 the possibility remains that any motion changes perceived between ACDF and AD at adjacent segments may in fact not be part of the root cause of cervical spondylotic processes. Given that we are utilizing a state-of-the-art motion analysis technique with high in vivo accuracy, we are confident that we are in a position to study spondylotic processes of the cervical spine.…”

Mid-term results of PLIF/TLIF in trauma

“…Several treatment options, such as posterior reduction and stabilization with or without posterolateral fusion, combined procedures using bony strut grafts or titanium implants with or without additional anterior plating for anterior reconstruction, isolated anterior procedures and conservative treatment with or without bracing are reported to yield satisfactory outcomes, typically in A3-type fractures [1,7,9,13,23,28,32,34,35,49,57,61]. There is no evidence indicating superiority of any treatment option [4, 11, 14, 17, 19, 21, 26, 31, 45, 51-53, 56, 60, 61].…”

Nonoperative versus Operative Treatment for Thoracolumbar Burst Fractures Without Neurologic Deficit: A Meta-analysis

“…Several systematic reviews of nonoperative versus operative treatment for thoracolumbar burst fractures without a neurologic deficit have been published [18,46,48,55]. However, Dai et al [18], Thomas et al [46], and van der Roer et al [48], based their conclusions primarily on descriptive summaries, included observational studies, and did not perform meta-analyses.…”

“…However, Dai et al [18], Thomas et al [46], and van der Roer et al [48], based their conclusions primarily on descriptive summaries, included observational studies, and did not perform meta-analyses. Similarly, the review by Yi et al [55] included only one randomized control trial (RCT), thus limiting its power and clinical utility. They also did not use available supplemental data [51] detailing individual patient outcomes, radiographic features, and baseline characteristics.…”