Crosslink augmentation in posterior fixation of unstable thoracic and thoracolumbar fractures: A comparative cohort study of mechanical failure and sagittal alignment.

IF 1 Q2 OTORHINOLARYNGOLOGY
Jorge Tabilo, Filadelfo Feliciano Norambuena, Cristian Valdez, César Padilla, Alejandro Barria, Cristobal Bravo, Marcos Diaz, Andrei Fernandes Joaquim
{"title":"Crosslink augmentation in posterior fixation of unstable thoracic and thoracolumbar fractures: A comparative cohort study of mechanical failure and sagittal alignment.","authors":"Jorge Tabilo, Filadelfo Feliciano Norambuena, Cristian Valdez, César Padilla, Alejandro Barria, Cristobal Bravo, Marcos Diaz, Andrei Fernandes Joaquim","doi":"10.4103/jcvjs.jcvjs_155_26","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The value of crosslink augmentation in posterior thoracolumbar instrumentation for traumatic fractures remains uncertain. Although biomechanical studies suggest improved rotational stability, clinical evidence is limited.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To compare mechanical failure and sagittal alignment in posterior pedicle-screw constructs with and without crosslink augmentation for traumatic thoracic, thoracolumbar, and lumbar fractures.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A retrospective single-center comparative cohort study included patients treated between January 2018 and March 2026 for traumatic thoracic, thoracolumbar, or lumbar fractures. Patients were grouped according to crosslink use. The primary outcome was construct-related mechanical failure, including rod fracture, screw loosening, implant disconnection, crosslink failure, progressive loss of correction, or revision for deformity. Local kyphosis was measured preoperatively, postoperatively, and at final follow-up.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Twenty-eight patients were analyzed: 13 with crosslink augmentation and 15 without crosslinks. Crosslink constructs were longer, with more instrumented levels (4.9 vs. 3.9; <i>P</i> = 0.008) and screws (8.2 vs. 6.7; <i>P</i> = 0.013). Index-level screw omission was more frequent with crosslinks (61.5% vs. 20.0%; <i>P</i> = 0.051), as was neurological deficit (84.6% vs. 0%; <i>P</i> < 0.001). AO type B/C morphology and confirmed or suspected posterior ligamentous complex injury were similarly distributed. No mechanical failures occurred in the crosslink group, whereas one noncrosslink patient developed screw loosening associated with chronic infection/fistula. Sagittal differences were not statistically significant, although final kyphosis and late kyphotic progression numerically favored crosslink augmentation.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Crosslink-augmented constructs showed no mechanical failures despite greater baseline complexity. These findings suggest potential mechanical benefit, but larger studies are required.</p>","PeriodicalId":51721,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Craniovertebral Junction and Spine","volume":"17 5","pages":"519-529"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2026-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13607895/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Craniovertebral Junction and Spine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/jcvjs.jcvjs_155_26","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/9/18 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"OTORHINOLARYNGOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The value of crosslink augmentation in posterior thoracolumbar instrumentation for traumatic fractures remains uncertain. Although biomechanical studies suggest improved rotational stability, clinical evidence is limited.

Objective: To compare mechanical failure and sagittal alignment in posterior pedicle-screw constructs with and without crosslink augmentation for traumatic thoracic, thoracolumbar, and lumbar fractures.

Methods: A retrospective single-center comparative cohort study included patients treated between January 2018 and March 2026 for traumatic thoracic, thoracolumbar, or lumbar fractures. Patients were grouped according to crosslink use. The primary outcome was construct-related mechanical failure, including rod fracture, screw loosening, implant disconnection, crosslink failure, progressive loss of correction, or revision for deformity. Local kyphosis was measured preoperatively, postoperatively, and at final follow-up.

Results: Twenty-eight patients were analyzed: 13 with crosslink augmentation and 15 without crosslinks. Crosslink constructs were longer, with more instrumented levels (4.9 vs. 3.9; P = 0.008) and screws (8.2 vs. 6.7; P = 0.013). Index-level screw omission was more frequent with crosslinks (61.5% vs. 20.0%; P = 0.051), as was neurological deficit (84.6% vs. 0%; P < 0.001). AO type B/C morphology and confirmed or suspected posterior ligamentous complex injury were similarly distributed. No mechanical failures occurred in the crosslink group, whereas one noncrosslink patient developed screw loosening associated with chronic infection/fistula. Sagittal differences were not statistically significant, although final kyphosis and late kyphotic progression numerically favored crosslink augmentation.

Conclusion: Crosslink-augmented constructs showed no mechanical failures despite greater baseline complexity. These findings suggest potential mechanical benefit, but larger studies are required.

交联增强后路固定治疗不稳定胸椎和胸腰椎骨折:机械失效和矢状位对齐的比较队列研究。
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
CiteScore
1.90
自引率
9.10%
发文量
57
审稿时长
12 weeks
×
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