Which spinal fixation technique achieves which degree of stability after thoracolumbar trauma? A systematic quantitative review

Abstract

Background context: Unstable traumatic spinal injuries require surgical fixation to restore biomechanical stability.

Purpose: The purpose of this review was to summarize and quantify three-dimensional spinal stability after surgical fixation of traumatic thoracolumbar spinal injuries using different treatment strategies derived from experimental studies.

Study design/setting: Systematic literature review.

Methods: Keyword-based search was performed in PubMed and Web of Science databases to identify all in vitro studies investigating stabilizing effects of different surgical fixation strategies for the treatment of traumatic spinal injuries of the thoracolumbar spine. Biomechanical stability parameters such as range of motion, neutral zone, and translation, as well as the experimental design were extracted, collected, and evaluated with respect to the type and level of injury and treatment strategy.

Results: A total of 66 studies with human specimens were included in this review, of which 16 studies examined the treatment of incomplete (AOSpine A3) and 34 studies the treatment of complete burst fractures (AOSpine A4). Fixations of wedge fractures (AOSpine A1, n=5 studies), ligament injuries (AOSpine B, n=7 studies), and three-column injuries (AOSpine C, n=7 studies) were investigated less frequently. Treatment approaches could be divided into 5 subgroups: Posterior fixation, eg, posterior pedicle screw systems, anterior fixation, eg, anterolateral plate fixation, combined anterior-posterior fixation, vertebral body replacement with additional instrumentation, and augmentation techniques, eg, vertebroplasty and kyphoplasty. Minor injuries were generally treated with less invasive surgical methods such as augmentative and posterior approaches. Bisegmental posterior pedicle screw fixation led to stabilization of minor compression injuries, whereas in more severe injuries, eg, AOSpine A4 or AOSpine C, instability remained in at least one motion plane. More invasive fixation techniques such as long segment posterior fixation, circumferential fixation, or vertebral body replacements with circumferential fixation provided total stabilization in terms of range of motion reduction even in more severe injuries. Pure augmentative treatment did not restore multidirectional stability. Neutral zone, which was reported in 25 studies, generally exhibited higher remaining increase than range of motion, which was reported in all 66 studies. Instability characteristics after treatment differed with respect to the spinal region, as thoracic injuries were more likely to remain unstable in flexion/extension, while thoracolumbar and lumbar injuries exhibited remaining instability primarily in axial rotation.

Conclusions: The stabilizing effect of surgical treatment depends on the type, severity, and location of injury, as well as the fixation strategy. There is an enormous range of surgical approaches and instrumentation strategies available. Pure augmentative techniques have not been able to restore complex multidimensional stability in traumatic spinal injuries. More invasive fixation approaches such as circumferential instrumentation or vertebral body replacement constructs together with posterior or anterior-posterior fixation offer more stability even in severe spinal injuries. Future studies are required to expand the knowledge especially regarding the stabilization of minor compression injuries, ligament injuries, and rotational injuries.

Keywords: Fixation; Fracture; Injury; Instability; Spine; Stabilization; Surgical treatment; Systematic review; Trauma.