Search

Study Design: This study adopted a cross-sectional study design. Purpose: This study was designed to investigate the effects of bone cross-link bridging on fracture mechanism and surgical outcomes in vertebral fractures using the maximum number of vertebral bodies with bony bridges between adjacent vertebrae without interruption (maxVB). Overview of Literature: The complex interplay of bone density and bone bridging in the elderly can complicate vertebral fractures, necessitating a better understanding of fracture mechanics. Methods: We examined 242 patients (age >60 years) who underwent surgery for thoracic to lumbar spine fractures from 2010 to 2020. Subsequently, the maxVB was classified into three groups: maxVB (0), maxVB (2-8), and maxVB (9-18), and parameters, including fracture morphology (new Association of Osteosynthesis classification), fracture level, and neurological deficits were compared. In a sub-analysis, 146 patients with thoracolumbar spine fractures were classified into the three aforementioned groups based on the maxVB and compared to determine the optimal operative technique and evaluate surgical outcomes. Results: Regarding the fracture morphology, the maxVB (0) group had more A3 and A4 fractures, whereas the maxVB (2-8) group had less A4 and more B1 and B2 fractures. The maxVB (9-18) group exhibited an increased frequency of B3 and C fractures. Regarding the fracture level, the maxVB (0) group tended to have more fractures in the thoracolumbar transition region. Furthermore, the maxVB (2-8) group had a higher fracture frequency in the lumbar spine area, whereas the maxVB (9-18) group had a higher fracture frequency in the thoracic spine area than the maxVB (0) group. The maxVB (9-18) group had fewer preoperative neurological deficits but a higher reoperation rate and postoperative mortality than the other groups. Conclusions: The maxVB was identified as a factor influencing fracture level, fracture type, and preoperative neurological deficits. Thus, understanding the maxVB could help elucidate fracture mechanics and assist in perioperative patient management. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Study Design: A retrospective, single-center clinical study with follow-up of more than 24 months. Purpose: To evaluate the union rates and relevant risk factors for non-union after posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) using porous-coated closed-box titanium spacers. Overview of Literature: Although the use of a closed-box interbody spacer for PLIF could avoid potential complications associated with the harvesting of autologous bone, few studies have reported detailed follow-up of fusion progression and risk factors for nonunion in the early postoperative period. Methods: PLIF using closed-box spacers without filling the autologous bone was performed in 78 (88 levels) consecutive patients. Surgical procedures included PLIF using traditional pedicle screw fixation (PLIFn=37), PLIF using cortical bone trajectory screw fixation (CBT-PLIF, n=30), and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with traditional pedicle screw fixation (TLIF, n=11). Lateral dynamic radiography and computed tomography findings were investigated, and the relationship between the union status and variables that may be related to the risk of non-union was tested statistically. Results: The overall bone union rates at 12 and 24 months were 68.0% and 88.5%, respectively. Incidences of bone cyst formation, subsidence, and retropulsion of spacers were 33.3%, 47.4%, and 14.1%, respectively. Union rates at 24 months were 94.6% in PLIF, 80.0% in CBT-PLIF, and 90.9% in TLIF. Multivariate logistic regression analyses showed that at 12 months postoperatively, the risk factor for non-union was age >75 years (p =0.02). In contrast, no significant risk factor was observed at 24 months. Conclusions: These findings demonstrated the efficacy of interbody closed-box spacers for PLIF without the need to fill the spacer with autologous bone. However, the risk of non-union should be considered in elderly patients, especially intra-operatively and during the early postoperative stage. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]