Rate and Predictors of Failure in the Conservative Management of Stable Thoracolumbar Burst Fractures: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review. OBJECTIVES: Management of stable traumatic thoracolumbar burst fractures in neurologically-intact patients remains controversial. Conservative management fails in a subset of patients who require subsequent surgical fixation. The aim of this review is to (1) determine the rate of conservative management failure, and (2) analyze predictive factors at admission influencing conservative management failure. METHODS: A systematic review adhering to PRISMA guidelines was performed. Studies with data pertaining to traumatic thoracolumbar burst fractures without posterior osteoligamentous injury (e.g. AO Type A3/A4) and/or the rate and predictive factors of conservative management failure were included. Risk of bias appraisal was performed. Pooled analysis of rates of failure was performed with qualitative analysis of predictors of conservative management failure. RESULTS: 16 articles were included in this review (11 pertaining to rate of conservative management failure, 5 pertaining to predictive risk factors). Rate of failure of conservative management from a pooled analysis of 601 patients is 9.2% (95% CI: 4.5%-13.9%). Admission factors predictive of conservative management failure include age, greater initial kyphotic angle, greater initial interpedicular distance, smaller initial residual canal size, greater Load Sharing Classification (LSC) score and greater admission Visual Analog Scale (VAS) pain scores. CONCLUSION: A proportion (9.2%) of conservatively managed, neurologically-intact thoracolumbar burst fractures fail conservative management. Among other factors, age, kyphotic angle, residual canal area and interpedicular distance should be investigated in prospective studies to identify the subset of patients prone to failure of conservative management. Surgical management should be carefully considered in patients with the above risk factors.

Prophylactic postoperative measures to minimize surgical site infections in spine surgery: systematic review and evidence summary.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: There are three phases in prophylaxis of surgical site infections (SSI): preoperative, intraoperative and postoperative. There is lack of consensus and paucity of evidence with SSI prophylaxis in the postoperative period. PURPOSE: To systematically evaluate the literature, and provide evidence-based summaries on postoperative measures for SSI prophylaxis in spine surgery. STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review, meta-analysis, evidence synthesis. METHODS: A systematic review conforming to PRIMSA guidelines was performed utilizing PubMed (MEDLINE), EMBASE, and the Cochrane Database from inception to January 2019. The GRADE approach was used for quality appraisal and synthesis of evidence. Six postoperative care domains with associated key questions were identified. Included studies were extracted into evidence tables, data synthesized quantitatively and qualitatively, and evidence appraised per GRADE approach. RESULTS: Forty-one studies (nine RCT, 32 cohort studies) were included. In the setting of preincisional antimicrobial prophylaxis (AMP) administration, use of postoperative AMP for SSI reduction has not been found to reduce rate of SSI in lumbosacral spine surgery. Prolonged administration of AMP for more than 48 hours postoperatively does not seem to reduce the rate of SSI in decompression-only or lumbar spine fusion surgery. Utilization of wound drainage systems in lumbosacral spine and adolescent idiopathic scoliosis corrective surgery does not seem to alter the overall rate of SSI in spine surgery. Concomitant administration of AMP in the presence of a wound drain does not seem to reduce the overall rate of SSI, deep SSI, or superficial SSI in thoracolumbar fusion performed for degenerative and deformity spine pathologies, and in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis corrective surgery. Enhanced-recovery after surgery clinical pathways and infection-specific protocols do not seem to reduce rate of SSI in spine surgery. Insufficient evidence exists for other types of spine surgery not mentioned above, and also for non-AMP pharmacological measures, dressing type and duration, suture and staple management, and postoperative nutrition for SSI prophylaxis in spine surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the postoperative period being key in SSI prophylaxis, the literature is sparse and without consensus on optimum postoperative care for SSI prevention in spine surgery. The current best evidence is presented with its limitations. High quality studies addressing high risk cohorts such as the elderly, obese, and diabetic populations, and for traumatic and oncological indications are urgently required.

Anterior versus posterior approach in the management of AO Type B1 & B2 traumatic thoracolumbar fractures: A level 1 trauma centre study.

The authors perform a retrospective trauma registry study to compare clinical, surgical and radiographical variables between anterior and posterior approaches in the management of AO Type B1 and B2 traumatic thoracolumbar fractures. Consecutive patients with surgically-managed AO Type B1 and B2 thoracolumbar fractures were included. Baseline demographics, surgical outcomes (including duration of surgery, postoperative morbidity etc.), neurological outcomes and radiographical outcomes (Cobb angle, Gardner angle) were compared between the anterior and posterior approaches. A total of 108 patients (anterior: n = 25, posterior: n = 83) were included. There were no significant between-group differences in baseline demographics and co-morbidities. Duration of surgery was longer in the anterior compared to posterior group (251 ± 91 min vs. 175 ± 69 min respectively, p < 0.00003). At six-months post-surgery, there was a trend towards improvement of at least one AIS grade in the posterior compared to the anterior group (85.7% vs. 33.3% respectively, p = 0.08). Postoperative complication profile showed no difference between approaches. The posterior approach resulted in better sagittal correction (Cobb angle; anterior: +1.05 ± 8.61 deg, posterior: -3.87 ± 9.88 deg, p = 0.03) and smaller loss of correction at 6-months post-surgery (Cobb angle; anterior: 8.36 ± 9.47 deg, posterior: 4.88 ± 6.62 deg, p = 0.048). This is the first study investigating surgical approach in flexion-distraction thoracolumbar fractures. Besides a shorter operative duration, the posterior approach seems to portend more favourable radiological correction at 6 months when compared to the anterior approach. Given the inherent selection bias of this study, definitive recommendations regarding the anterior versus posterior approach cannot be made. Further well-defined, prospective studies are necessary.

Patients with ankylosing spondylitis suffering from AO Type B3 traumatic thoracolumbar fractures are associated with increased frailty and morbidity when compared with patients with diffuse idiopathic skeletal hyperostosis.

BACKGROUND: AO Type B3 hyperextension thoracolumbar fractures are the commonest fracture subtype in ankylosing spinal disorders. Although often considered together in spinal fractures, ankylosing spondylitis (AS) and diffuse idiopathic skeletal hyperostosis (DISH) are distinct spondyloarthropathies with different pathophysiology. Few studies have compared the two entities in the setting of traumatic thoracolumbar fractures. The authors compare demographic metrics, injury profile, clinical and radiographical outcomes between patients with AS and DISH in patients suffering from AO Type B3 traumatic thoracolumbar fractures. METHODS: From January 2008 to December 2018, a retrospective analysis of consecutive surgically-managed patients with AO Type B3 fractures was performed. Demographic metrics, co-morbidity [Charlson-comorbidity index, modified frailty index (mFI), etc.], injury profile (level of injury, mechanism of injury, etc.), clinical (postoperative complication, etc.) and radiographical variables were collected. Differences between patients with AS and DISH were compared. RESULTS: Fourteen patients were identified. All patients had AS (n=6) or DISH (n=8). The mean age was 72.8±10.2 years and 78.6% of patients were neurologically intact at presentation. Medical and/or surgical complications occurred in 10 of 14 (71.4%) patients. As compared to patients with DISH, patients with AS were more likely to have low falls as the injury mechanism [odds ratio (OR): 35.0, P=0.026], have higher mFI (OR: 30.6, P=0.015), and experience a higher number of postoperative complications per patient (AS: 1.8/patient vs. DISH: 0.5/patient, P=0.024). CONCLUSIONS: In the setting of AO Type B3 fractures, patients with AS are more frail and have higher in-hospital morbidity compared to patients with DISH. Despite both pathologies being ankylosing in nature, further studies are required to fully understand the clinical differences between the two entities to enable clinicians to apply a more targeted and nuanced approach in managing fractures in ankylosing spinal disorders.