Percutaneous thoracolumbar burst-fracture fixation - does additional anterior support offer significant benefit?

IF 0.8 4区 医学 Q4 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Alvaro Urbaneja, Rubén Martin Laez, Patricia López Gomez
{"title":"Percutaneous thoracolumbar burst-fracture fixation - does additional anterior support offer significant benefit?","authors":"Alvaro Urbaneja, Rubén Martin Laez, Patricia López Gomez","doi":"10.1080/02688697.2026.2643667","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Percutaneous pedicle screw fixation has become a widely adopted technique for treating thoracolumbar burst fractures without neurological deficit, though optimal strategies - particularly regarding anterior support - remain debated. Our objective is to compare kyphotic angle evolution over six months in patients treated with pedicle screws alone versus those receiving additional anterior support via vertebroplasty or kyphoplasty.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We retrospectively analysed 34 neurologically intact patients with thoracolumbar burst fractures treated percutaneously at our institution over the past five years. Patients were divided into two groups: pedicle screw fixation only (<i>n</i> = 15) and screw fixation with anterior support (<i>n</i> = 19). Segmental kyphosis was measured at diagnosis, 24 hours post-op, 3 months, and 6 months. Secondary outcomes included age, sex, visual analog scale (VAS) scores, opioid use, hospital stay, and complications.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Both techniques were effective. At 3 months, mean kyphosis was 7.9° in the screw-only group and 6.6° in the anterior support group. At 6 months, kyphosis converged (7.9° vs. 7.73°, respectively). The only significant difference was observed 24 hours post-op, with greater correction in the anterior support group (<i>p</i> = 0.026). VAS scores improved similarly in both groups, and opioid requirements were low.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>While anterior support provided superior immediate radiological correction, this benefit diminished by six months. Both techniques demonstrated comparable long-term outcomes in preserving sagittal alignment and controlling pain in neurologically intact thoracolumbar burst fractures.</p>","PeriodicalId":9261,"journal":{"name":"British Journal of Neurosurgery","volume":" ","pages":"1-6"},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2026-03-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"British Journal of Neurosurgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/02688697.2026.2643667","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: Percutaneous pedicle screw fixation has become a widely adopted technique for treating thoracolumbar burst fractures without neurological deficit, though optimal strategies - particularly regarding anterior support - remain debated. Our objective is to compare kyphotic angle evolution over six months in patients treated with pedicle screws alone versus those receiving additional anterior support via vertebroplasty or kyphoplasty.

Methods: We retrospectively analysed 34 neurologically intact patients with thoracolumbar burst fractures treated percutaneously at our institution over the past five years. Patients were divided into two groups: pedicle screw fixation only (n = 15) and screw fixation with anterior support (n = 19). Segmental kyphosis was measured at diagnosis, 24 hours post-op, 3 months, and 6 months. Secondary outcomes included age, sex, visual analog scale (VAS) scores, opioid use, hospital stay, and complications.

Results: Both techniques were effective. At 3 months, mean kyphosis was 7.9° in the screw-only group and 6.6° in the anterior support group. At 6 months, kyphosis converged (7.9° vs. 7.73°, respectively). The only significant difference was observed 24 hours post-op, with greater correction in the anterior support group (p = 0.026). VAS scores improved similarly in both groups, and opioid requirements were low.

Conclusions: While anterior support provided superior immediate radiological correction, this benefit diminished by six months. Both techniques demonstrated comparable long-term outcomes in preserving sagittal alignment and controlling pain in neurologically intact thoracolumbar burst fractures.

经皮胸腰椎爆裂骨折固定-额外的前路支持是否有显著的益处?
目的:经皮椎弓根螺钉固定已成为治疗胸腰椎爆裂性骨折而无神经功能缺损的广泛采用的技术,尽管最佳策略-特别是关于前路支持-仍存在争议。我们的目的是比较单独接受椎弓根螺钉治疗的患者与通过椎体成形术或后凸成形术接受额外前路支持的患者在6个月内的后凸角演变。方法:我们回顾性分析了过去五年来在我院经皮治疗的34例神经系统完整的胸腰椎爆裂骨折患者。患者分为单纯椎弓根螺钉固定组(n = 15)和前路支撑螺钉固定组(n = 19)。在诊断时、术后24小时、3个月和6个月测量节段性后凸。次要结局包括年龄、性别、视觉模拟量表(VAS)评分、阿片类药物使用、住院时间和并发症。结果:两种方法均有效。3个月时,单纯螺钉组的平均后凸度为7.9°,前路支持组的平均后凸度为6.6°。6个月时,后凸融合(分别为7.9°和7.73°)。唯一的显著差异出现在术后24小时,前路支持组矫正程度更高(p = 0.026)。两组的VAS评分改善相似,阿片类药物需求较低。结论:虽然前路支持提供了更好的即时放射矫正,但这种益处在6个月后减弱。两种技术在保持矢状位对齐和控制神经完整胸腰椎爆裂骨折疼痛方面显示出相当的长期效果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
British Journal of Neurosurgery
British Journal of Neurosurgery 医学-临床神经学
CiteScore
2.30
自引率
9.10%
发文量
139
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The British Journal of Neurosurgery is a leading international forum for debate in the field of neurosurgery, publishing original peer-reviewed articles of the highest quality, along with comment and correspondence on all topics of current interest to neurosurgeons worldwide. Coverage includes all aspects of case assessment and surgical practice, as well as wide-ranging research, with an emphasis on clinical rather than experimental material. Special emphasis is placed on postgraduate education with review articles on basic neurosciences and on the theory behind advances in techniques, investigation and clinical management. All papers are submitted to rigorous and independent peer-review, ensuring the journal’s wide citation and its appearance in the major abstracting and indexing services.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书