The Load Sharing Classification of Spine Fractures

McCormack, Thomas J.; Karaikovic, Eldin E.; Gaines, Robert W.

doi:10.1097/00007632-199408000-00014

Cited by 814 publications

(642 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

580

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This is a prospective study of six burst fractures that scored 7 or more points on the McCormack load sharing classification [8], and were treated with vertebral shortening and a posterior approach. Patients ranged in age from 36 to 55 years; two were male and four female.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Burst fractures may be stable or unstable [11]; that is why controversy exists as to the best approach (anterior or posterior) and stabilization system to use [8,12].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The residual kyphosis in the present series, after the 2-year follow up, was less than 1°, which is lower than the 5°-10°reported in the literature. Actually, thanks to the load sharing classification, we know that 20-30% of fractures require an anterior or combined approach to avoid kyphosis, dislodgement and rupture of the implant [5,8,11]. With all that in mind, we suggest the use of a posterior approach for burst fractures that might be seen as requiring an anterior one, as this means less bleeding and less surgical time, and offers a stronger possibility of stabilization on a structure created by two flat surfaces of healthy bone lying together.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…

…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…4. Careful arthrodesis with autologous bone graft is the most desirable procedure [8,12].Abstract Burst fractures may be stable or unstable, so the choice of treatment may be controversial; almost all cases are surgical type. Deciding on the best method and approach is difficult, due to the many possible options and the fact that good results are achieved in only 60-70% of cases.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Treatment of thoracolumbar burst fractures by vertebral shortening

Reyes-Sánchez¹,

Rosales²,

Miramontes³

et al. 2001

Eur Spine J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionIn surgical treatment of vertebral fractures, the most important aspects are the instrumentation system, which has to prevent movement along the three axes of the spine, and placing two surfaces of healthy bone together, or better yet, placing a very good construct with surgical coaptation of two plain surfaces [1,2,4,5,7,9,10,12].Burst fractures may be stable or unstable [11]; that is why controversy exists as to the best approach (anterior or posterior) and stabilization system to use [8,12].We know the following about burst fracture treatment 1. With a posterior approach, good results are achieved in only 60-70% of patients [2,3,5,6,12]. 2. An anterior approach is necessary in 20-30% of patients, as a complementary approach or as a primary indication [5,7,12]. 3. Fixation offers early physical therapy without the use of a brace [1,3,4,11,12]. 4. Careful arthrodesis with autologous bone graft is the most desirable procedure [8,12].Abstract Burst fractures may be stable or unstable, so the choice of treatment may be controversial; almost all cases are surgical type. Deciding on the best method and approach is difficult, due to the many possible options and the fact that good results are achieved in only 60-70% of cases. The main problems to be resolved are the residual kyphosis or the recurrence due to loss of reduction. This is a prospective, observational, longitudinal and descriptive study of six patientstwo men and four women, mean age 46 years -who scored 7 or more points according to the load distribution classification, and were treated with vertebral shortening by a posterior approach and transpedicular fixation with INO plates. Follow-up was for a period of 2 years, and included evaluating pre-and postoperative stability and kyphosis among other data. The results showed a reduction in the mean fracture angle from 17°preoperatively to 1°post-operatively. Full stability was achieved in five patients, and incomplete stability in one patient, who recovered with the use of a corset.There was evidence of arthrodesis in all six patients within 9 months. The use of an anterior approach to treat burst fractures is well recognized; however, treatment with vertebral shortening using a posterior approach has the advantages of less bleeding, shorter surgical time and less residual kyphosis, as a result of putting together two flat surfaces of healthy bone. The residual kyphosis in the present series, after the 2-year follow up, was less than 1°, which is lower than the 5°-10°reported in the literature.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Burst fractures may be stable or unstable [11]; that is why controversy exists as to the best approach (anterior or posterior) and stabilization system to use [8,12].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…

…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations