Kepler, Christopher K.

The management of thoracolumbar burst fractures is controversial with no universally accepted treatment algorithm. Several classification and scoring systems have been developed to assist in surgical decision-making. The most widely accepted are the Thoracolumbar Injury Classification and Severity Score (TLICS) and AOSpine Thoracolumbar Injury Classification Score (TL AOSIS) with both systems designed to provide a simple objective scoring criteria to guide the surgical or nonsurgical management of complex injury patterns. When used in the evaluation and treatment of thoracolumbar burst fractures, both of these systems result in safe and consistent patient care. However, there are important differences between the 2 systems, specifically in the evaluation of the complete burst fractures (AOSIS A4) and patients with transient neurological deficits (AOSIS N1). In these circumstances, the AOSpine system may more accurately capture and characterize injury severity, providing the most refined guidance for optimal treatment. With respect to surgical approach, these systems provide a framework for decision-making based on patient neurology and the status of the posterior tension band. Here we propose an operative treatment algorithm based on these fracture characteristics as well as the level of injury.

OBJECT In this clinically based systematic review of cervical facet fractures, the authors’ aim was to determine the optimal clinical care for patients with isolated fractures of the cervical facets through a systematic review. METHODS A systematic review of nonoperative and operative treatment methods of cervical facet fractures was performed. Reduction and stabilization treatments were compared, and analysis of postoperative outcomes was performed. MEDLINE and Scopus databases were used. This work was supported through support received from the Association for Collaborative Spine Research and AOSpine North America. RESULTS Eleven studies with 368 patients met the inclusion criteria. Forty-six patients had bilateral isolated cervical facet fractures and 322 had unilateral isolated cervical facet fractures. Closed reduction was successful in 56.4% (39 patients) and 63.8% (94 patients) of patients using a halo vest and Gardner-Wells tongs, respectively. Comparatively, open reduction was successful in 94.9% of patients (successful reduction of open to closed reduction OR 12.8 [95% CI 6.1–26.9], p < 0.0001); 183 patients underwent internal fixation, with an 87.2% success rate in maintaining anatomical alignment. When comparing the success of patients who underwent anterior versus posterior procedures, anterior approaches showed a 90.5% rate of maintenance of reduction, compared with a 75.6% rate for the posterior approach (anterior vs posterior OR 3.1 [95% CI 1.0–9.4], p = 0.05). CONCLUSIONS In comparison with nonoperative treatments, operative treatments provided a more successful outcome in terms of failure of treatment to maintain reduction for patients with cervical facet fractures. Operative treatment appears to provide superior results to the nonoperative treatments assessed.

Study Design: Evidence-based systematic review. Objectives: To define the optimal treatment of fractures involving the C2 body, including those with concomitant injuries, based upon a systematic review of the literature. Summary of Background Data: Axis body fractures have customarily been treated nonoperatively, but there are some injuries that may require operative intervention. High-quality literature is sparse and there are few class I or class II studies to guide treatment decisions. Materials and Methods: A literature search was conducted using PubMed (MEDLINE), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Scopus (EMBASE, MEDLINE, COMPENDEX). The quality of literature was rated according to a grading tool developed by the Center for Evidence-based Medicine. Operative and nonoperative treatment of axis body fractures were compared using fracture bony union as the primary outcome measure. As risk factors for nonunion were not consistently reported, cases were analyzed individually. Results: The literature search identified 62 studies, of which 10 were case reports which were excluded from the analysis. A total of 920 patients from 52 studies were included. The overall bony union rate for all axis body fractures was 91%. Although the majority of fractures were treated nonoperatively, there has been an increasing trend toward operative intervention for Benzel type III (transverse) axis body fractures. Nearly 76% of axis body fractures were classified as type III fractures, of which 88% united successfully. Nearly all Benzel type I and type II axis body fractures were successfully treated nonoperatively. The risk factors for nonunion included: a higher degree of subluxation, fracture displacement, comminution, concurrent injuries, delay in treatment, and older age. Conclusions: High rates for fracture union are reported in the literature for axis body fractures with nonoperative treatment. High-quality prospective studies are required to develop consensus as to which C2 body fractures require operative fixation.