Posterior monosegment pedicle screw versus short segment pedicle screw instrumentation for type B thoracolumbar vertebral fracture

doi:10.3969/j.issn.2095-4344.2014.17.015

Abstract

Abstract:

BACKGROUND: Both the posterior monosegment pedicle screw instrumentation and the traditional posterior short segment pedicle screw instrumentation are common surgical methods for treating type B thoracolumbar fractures. However, their advantages, short-term and long-term surgical outcomes are still unclear.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the stability of vertebra after posterior monosegment pedicle screw instrumentation and traditional posterior short segment pedicle screw instrumentation in the management of type B thoracolumbar fractures and the effects on intervertebral disc degeneration of adjacent segments.
METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed 80 patients suffered from type B thoracolumbar fractures according to AO classification. The patients were divided into two groups according to the surgery they received. One was the traditional posterior short segment pedicle screw instrumentation group (n=45), and the other was posterior monosegment pedicle screw instrumentation group (n=40). The clinical therapeutic results were evaluated by measuring visual analogue scale score, ASIA classification, vertebral body compression rate, the index of vertebral canal occlusion, Cobb angle and UCLA arthritic grade respectively.
RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: There were no statistical differences between the two groups in the ASIA neurological function classification, the occlusion index and the Cobb angle. However, operation time, bleeding amount, visual analogue scale scores, vertebral body compression rate and UCLA arthritic grade were better in the posterior monosegment pedicle screw instrumentation group than those in the traditional posterior short segment pedicle screw instrumentation group. Both the posterior monosegment pedicle screw instrumentation and traditional posterior short segment pedicle screw instrumentation showed great therapeutic results in the treatment of type B thoracolumbar fracture. The improvements in vertebral body compression rate and visual analogue scale scores were better in the posterior monosegment pedicle screw instrumentation group than those in the traditional posterior short segment pedicle screw instrumentation group. The posterior monosegment pedicle screw instrumentation also has many advantages such as less operation time, little trauma, preserving normal vertebrae segment and reducing intervertebral disc degeneration of adjacent segments.

中国组织工程研究杂志出版内容重点：人工关节；骨植入物；脊柱；骨折；内固定；数字化骨科；组织工程

全文链接：

Key words: lumbar vertebrae, thoracic vertebrae, fractures, bone, internal fixators, bone nails

CLC Number:

R318

Cui Shang-bin, Wei Fu-xin, Liu Shao-yu, Wang Le, Han Guo-wei, Huang Yang-liang . Posterior monosegment pedicle screw versus short segment pedicle screw instrumentation for type B thoracolumbar vertebral fracture[J]. Chinese Journal of Tissue Engineering Research, 2014, 18(17): 2709-2715.

Figures/Tables 7

References

[1] Magerl F, Aebi M, Gertzbein SD, et al. A comprehensive classification of thoracic and lumbar injuries. Eur Spine J. 1994;3(4):184-201.
[2] 宋元进,孙海燕,王谦军,等.后路短节段固定结合伤椎固定经椎弓根植骨治疗胸腰段骨折[J].中国矫形外科杂志,2010,16(2):110-112.
[3] Aebi M. Classification of thoracolumbar fractures and dislocations. Eur Spine J. 2010;19 Suppl 1:S2-7.
[4] 魏富鑫,刘少喻,梁春祥,等.经骨折椎单节段复位固定治疗创伤性胸腰椎骨折的临床疗效[J].中国骨科临床与基础研究杂志,2009, 1(2):88-92.
[5] Mahar A, Kim C, Wedemeyer M, et al. Short-segment fixation of lumbar burst fractures using pedicle fixation at the level of the fracture. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2007;32(14):1503-1507.
[6] 张锋,张文志,李旭,等.后路长节段与短节段椎弓根螺钉治疗胸腰段爆裂性骨折的疗效比较[J].临床骨科杂志, 2013,16(2):132- 135.
[7] Lee GW, Jang SJ, Kim JD, et al. The efficacy of percutaneous long-segmental posterior fixation of unstable thoracolumbar fracture with partial neurologic deficit. Asian Spine J. 2013; 7(2):81-90.
[8] 阮狄克. 胸腰段脊柱骨折内固定使用长节段还是短节段[J].中国骨伤,2009,28(7):483-484.
[9] 魏富鑫,刘少喻,赵卫东,等.单节段与双节段椎弓根螺钉固定胸腰椎单椎体骨折的生物力学比较[J].中国脊柱脊髓杂志,2007, 17(1): 46-50.
[10] Korovessis P, Repantis T, Zacharatos S, et al. Does Wallis implant reduce adjacent segment degeneration above lumbosacral instrumented fusion? Eur Spine J. 2009; 18(6): 830-840.
[11] Kim HS, Kim SW, Ju CI, et al. Short segment fixation for thoracolumbar burst fracture accompanying osteopenia : a comparative study. J Korean Neurosurg Soc. 2013;53(1):26- 30.
[12] Li X, Ma Y, Dong J, et al. Retrospective analysis of treatment of thoracolumbar burst fracture using mono-segment pedicle instrumentation compared with short-segment pedicle instrumentation. Eur Spine J.2012;21(10):2034-2042.
[13] Kim HS, Kim SW, Ju CI, et al. Short segment fixation for thoracolumbar burst fracture accompanying osteopenia : a comparative study. J Korean Neurosurg Soc. 2013;53(1): 26-30.
[14] de Assuncao FC, Veloso RP, Meves R, et al. Thoracolumbar burst fracture: radiographic evaluation on differences between Magerl's A and B. Acta Ortop Bras. 2012;20(4):240-242.
[15] Shi R, Liu H, Zhao X, et al. Anterior single segmental decompression and fixation for Denis B type thoracolumbar burst fracture with neurological deficiency: thirty-four cases with average twenty-six month follow-up. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2011;36(9):E598-E605.
[16] Pizones J, Izquierdo E, Alvarez P, et al. Impact of magnetic resonance imaging on decision making for thoracolumbar traumatic fracture diagnosis and treatment. Eur Spine J. 2011;20 Suppl 3:390-396.
[17] Vaccaro AR, Oner C, Kepler CK, et al. AOSpine thoracolumbar spine injury classification system: fracture description, neurological status, and key modifiers. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2013;38(23):2028-2037.
[18] 魏富鑫,刘少喻,梁春祥,等.单椎间椎弓根钉固定胸腰椎骨折生物力学评价[J].生物医学工程与临床,2008,12(2):85-89.
[19] 梁涛,刘浩,丰干钧,等.胸腰椎爆裂骨折前路单节段与双节段固定的生物力学比较[J].生物医学工程学杂志,2011,28(3):491-496.
[20] 许效坤,左炳光. 后路短节段固定治疗胸腰椎骨折是否需要融合？[J].中国骨与关节损伤杂志,2012,27(9):820-821.