Traditionally, the management of thoracolumbar burst fractures involves posterior pedicle screw fixation at the levels adjacent to the fractured vertebra. However, it was found that this method of stabilization has high failure rates, which manifested as progressive loss of fracture reduction, screw breakage and segmental kyphosis [14]. Aono H,et al. had suggested that the deficient anterior column was the main reason of failures after short-segment posterior fixation biomechanically [15]. In this situation, intermediate screws technology shows more advantage than prior short-segment posterior fixation. It can function as a push point with an anterior vector, which creates a lordorizing force so as to correct the segmental kyphosis. Meanwhile, the cantilever effects caused kyphosis were decreased by the three-point fixation [16, 17].
In present study, adequate reduction was achieved immediately after surgery. Firstly, partial reduction was obtained by the lordotic prone position. Secondly, kyphotic deformity was corrected by rod distraction and monoaxial pedicle screws, which were inserted parallel to the end plate of the adjacent vertebral body. Lastly, we tried to get endplate reduction through distraction-compression technology.
The success of this surgical procedure depends on these aspects as follows. Firstly, the use of intermediate screws can increase the fixation strength and stability of a posterior short segment construct. Secondly, the use of monoaxial pedicle screw can exhibit more correcting force for segmental kyphosis. A study has reported by Wang that monoaxial pedicle screw exhibited more stability in flexion and extension than the polyaxial pedicle screw [18]. Thirdly, the preservation of the posterior column is beneficial to reducing the stress concentration when anterior and middle columns injured; it may prevent early implants failure.
There are theoretical concerns regarding the use of intermediate screws. On the one hand, the pullout strength of the screw, no doubt, is weakening in the fractured vertebra body. However, the support and lever force were more needed for intermediate screws. On the other hand, whether is it safe to insert a screw through a broken bone, such as breach into the spinal canal? In fact, we found the walls of the pedicle are intact in most cases with burst fractures. The CT scan images have also demonstrated good containment of screws in postoperatively. So inserting screw in injured vertebrae is similar to pedicle screw insertion in adjacent vertebrae.
We did not perform laminectomy, even when patients had mild neurological deficits. Previous study by Shuman concluded there is no correlation between decompression and subsequent neurologic improvement [19]. Zhang et al. have also reported good neurological improvement was achieved in 36 patients with thoracolumbar fracture and incomplete neurological deficits. They were treated using posterior indirect reduction and pedicle screw fixation without laminectomy or laminotomy [20]. Boerger et al. concluded that geometrical parameters of canal compromise do not relate to initial neurological deficits [21]. On the contrary, Meves R et al. reported that narrowing of the spinal canal has a stronger association with neurologic deficit than injury severity in thoracolumbar burst fractures [22]. There are several studies showed a positive effect of decompression. These patients might have neurologic improvement if decompression was performed during the first 24 h after accident [23,24,25]. Nevertheless, the role and timing of surgery after spinal cord injury remain controversial. Stabilization of the spine, decompression of the spinal cord, and maintenance of blood perfusion are critical in optimizing neurological recovery. In present study, for the patients with moderate or above neurologic deficit, posterior instrumented and focal decompression were performed. All of patients showed neurological improvements in different degrees at the final follow up.
For canal narrowing, the radiological data in our study are similar to the past published case series. Spontaneous resorption of bone fragments in spinal canal has been reported in some cases with or without instrumentation [26, 27]. In present study, significant remodeling of the spinal canal was observed at one year after surgery. At the final follow up, bony narrowing of the spinal canal is only recognizable in 3.05%, which is in line with Leferink VJ et al. [28]. Because of comminuted bony fragments affect spontaneous canal remodeling, the change of resorption can be estimated by CT scan.
For the option of additional posterior fusion, there is still hot topic. In the past and present, fusion surgery has been regarded as the gold standard for spinal disorder. Theoretically, it is very likely that the rods will break during the first five years after stabilization if without fusion. However, a study by Jindal N et al. concluded that adjunctive fusion is unnecessary for thoracolumbar burst fracture with short segment pedicle screw fixation [29]. The advantages of non-fusion are preservation of mobility, shorten operating time, lesser blood loss and obviated donor site complications [30]. However, the disadvantage of non-fusion is the need for further surgery to remove the implants. In present study, transpedicular fixation without fusion was selected and implants removal was suggested in one year later.
There is still controversy regarding the implant removal. A retrospective study by Chou et al. including 69 cases has suggested that implant removal may be unnecessary for patients with thoracolumbar burst fractures after instrumentation without fusion. They concluded that the radiological and functional outcomes of both implant removal and retention were similar. However, information should be provided beforehand regarding the possibility of screw breakage [31]. On the contrary, a case-control study by Jeon CH concluded that implants removal is beneficial because it alleviates pain and disability [32]. Furthermore, restoration of the segmental mobility may contribute to the functional improvement.
This study has some limitations. First, forty-two patients is a rather small group for such a clinical study. Second, the timing of the removal of the implant and non-fusion still remain as an open question. Third, the retrospective nature of the study and short follow up time were also a limitation; it merits further investigation with a more prospective and controlled design. In addition, this study does not contain results about life quality in the follow-up. Further clinical parameters and scores (such as ODI, SF 36, patient satisfaction, return to work) about life quality, especially spinal mobilization and mental health status, are needed to be evaluated in the future.
