Abstract
Purpose
-
The aim of the study was to assess the role of kyphoplasty and expandable intravertebral implants in the treatment of traumatic vertebral compression fractures.
Design
-
This is a systematic review.
Methods
-
A bibliographic search was carried out in the PubMed/MEDLINE database according to PRISMA guidelines regarding kyphoplasty and expandable intravertebral implants in the treatment of traumatic thoracolumbar vertebral fractures.
Results
-
A total of 611 records were screened. In total, 51 studies were obtained referring to traumatic vertebral fractures treated with kyphoplasty; however, of these, only studies addressing traumatic burst fractures were selected, resulting in 12 studies: 10 about kyphoplasty and 2 regarding armed kyphoplasty. In all studies, there was a statistically significant improvement in clinical and functional parameters, restoration of vertebral height and decreasing of vertebral and segmental kyphosis. Overall, there was only a residual loss of height and a slight increase in kyphosis throughout the follow-up period, while complications consisted essentially of cement leakage, all with no clinical repercussions.
Conclusion
-
After the discussion, where we address the concepts of direct and indirect reduction, the association of kyphoplasty with pedicle fixation, the potential advantages of expandable intravertebral implants, as well as the vertebral body type of filling in kyphoplasty, it is concluded that kyphoplasty demonstrates favorable outcomes as a method of posterior percutaneous transpedicular access for reconstruction of the anterior column in burst fractures. It allows for the reconstruction of the vertebral body closer to its original anatomy, carried out in a minimally invasive and safe way, which provides a clinical-functional and imaging improvement maintained at the medium–long term.
Introduction
The treatment of fractures of the thoracolumbar spine, specifically compression fractures, has suffered an important development in the past 30 years, with a considerable change of techniques, indications and surgical implants. The objective is still to reduce fracture deformity, to obtain stabilization of the segment and to keep the reduction in long term, with the least surgical aggression possible, also resorting to a minimum number of fused levels. Surgical burden and morbidity of anterior approaches used for vertebral body corpectomy and replacement (Fig. 1), even though showing good imaging and clinical outcomes, has led to an excessive trend to treat vertebral compression fractures merely by posterior pedicular instrumentation. The latter is at the moment the most common surgical technique, many times rising the number of fixed levels (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6). In spite of the overall adequate clinical outcomes after adjacent level bridge pedicle screws fixation (Fig. 2A) concerning the treatment of vertebral fractures, there is sometimes loss of vertebral body height, instrumentation failure and local and posttraumatic segmental kyphosis, leading to functional and clinical consequences (7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19).
Complete burst fracture surgical treatment by anterior approach – corporectomy and intersomatic fusion with structural bone graft or intersomatic cage and fixation with plate plus pedicle screw instrumentation at adjacent levels.
Citation: EFORT Open Reviews 9, 4; 10.1530/EOR-23-0190
Complete burst fracture surgical treatment options performed by posterior approach: (A) Adjacent levels bridge pedicle screw short instrumentation; (B) Adjacent levels pedicle screw instrumentation plus intermediate pedicle screws at the fractured vertebral body level; (C) Adjacent levels pedicle screw instrumentation plus kyphoplasty; (D) Adjacent levels pedicle screw instrumentation plus armed kyphoplasty with use of expansive intravertebral implants.
Citation: EFORT Open Reviews 9, 4; 10.1530/EOR-23-0190
One of the options that emerged after the classic bridge pedicle fixation was to add intermediate fixation of the fractured vertebra (Fig. 2B), also termed six-screw construction as a posterior short-segment fixation (20). Several studies have focused on this theme, confirming the advantage of fixing the fractured vertebra by significantly increasing the instrumentation stability and decreasing the stress on screws at adjacent levels. At the same time it permits to avoid fixation of more adjacent levels and ensures a stability similar to a longer fixation, allowing to decrease posttraumatic flattening of the vertebral body compared to bridge fixation. Since then, the option of short posterior fixation with screws at the level of the fracture has become the gold standard in compression fractures and has taken on particular importance, given its additional stability, in fractures with significant somatic comminution, in which corpectomy and vertebral body replacement are not performed (20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26). Nevertheless, the loss of support in the anterior column, which gets 80% of all axial loads, inevitably leads to the overload of the posterior instrumentation. This may originate failure of the posterior construct and/or vertebral body flattening and collapse when the fixation is not robust enough to compensate the lack of anterior support, specifically in what concerns burst fractures (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12).
This way, minimally invasive techniques of augmentation of the fractured vertebral body, previously only applied with success in osteoporotic fractures, have acquired increasing demand in trauma, as they are able to support and stabilize the anterior column by a percutaneous posterior pathway, this way avoiding the aggression of the anterior approaches. At the same time, they increase the construct stiffness, reducing the load and bending moments on the pedicle screw instrumentation, and preventing its failure as well as anterior column collapse (Fig. 2C) (27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32). Kyphoplasty has come out as an evolution of vertebroplasty, permitting to associate its stabilizing and analgesic effect regarding the application of intravertebral cement, to the restoration of the height of the fractured vertebral body, by creating intrasomatic cavities with an expandable balloons, which are then filled with cement. Besides reducing the fractured vertebral body, the creation of previous intrasomatic cavities with less pressure and covered by impacted bone trabeculae (which work as a shield) and by the walls of the vertebral body, decreases the possibility of cement extravasation, reducing the risks of related complications (28, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37). However, one of the criticisms pointed out to kyphoplasty concerns its incapacity to keep the restored height of the vertebral body after balloon removal and before cement application, leading to vertebra flattening through elastic recoil by ligament and annulotaxis (also known as deflation effect). Even when the patient lies down on the table with the spine in hyperextension, compression forces of approximately 110 N keep acting on the fractured vertebra, resulting in its flattening (12, 28, 29, 30, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49). In order to try to compensate for this disadvantage, expandable intravertebral implants were developed (Fig. 2D). These are devices capable of controlled self-expansion applied percutaneously by posterior transpedicular access. They are placed inside the fractured vertebral body, which often presents a compression fracture. Their expansion can reduce the fracture of the vertebral body, restoring its height, stability, and integrity (50, 51). The application of expandable intravertebral implants, also known asarmed kyphoplasty, not only allows for immediate analgesia and stabilization advantages of vertebroplasty and kyphoplasty, but also permits the maintenance of the restored vertebral height, which is proven in several studies with medium and long-term follow-up (28, 29, 30, 41, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63). This happens because, after restoration of the height of vertebral endplates’, they are mechanically supported by the expanded devices, working as an interior support or sustentaculum that prevent or decrease vertebral flattening, lowering the risk of posttraumatic local and segmental kyphosis and assuring a stable anterior support of the vertebral body’s height (28, 29, 64, 65, 66, 67). Consequently, expandable intravertebral implants have become popular in what concerns the treatment of vertebral body compression fractures, thanks to their guarantee of stable anterior support at the level of the vertebral body, carried out percutaneously and transpedicularly, and leaving the invasiveness of corpectomy and reconstruction with massive allograft or spacers for cases that demand anterior neurological decompression of the vertebral canal (64, 65, 68).
Materials and methods
A systematic review was carried out searching the Medline/PubMed® database, according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines (69), in the English language, from database inception to September 2023, using the following string of words: kyphoplasty OR intravertebral expandable OR stentoplasty OR vertebral body stenting OR spinejack OR balloon vertebroplasty AND Spinal Fractures OR vertebral fractures OR thoracolumbar fractures OR lumbar fractures , with no limit specified. A total of 611 records were screened, and the search sequence is shown in Fig. 3. In the end, 51 studies were obtained referring to traumatic vertebral fractures treated with kyphoplasty. However, among these, only studies that address the traumatic burst fractures were included, resulting in 12 studies, 10 relating to kyphoplasty (Supplementary Table 1, see section on supplementary materials given at the end of this article) and 2 relating to armed kyphoplasty, that is, with the use of expandable intravertebral implants (Supplementary Table 2).
PRISMA flow diagram of the systematic review.
Citation: EFORT Open Reviews 9, 4; 10.1530/EOR-23-0190
Results
The main studies referring to treatment with kyphoplasty or armed kyphoplasty in acute traumatic thoracolumbar burst-type vertebral fractures are summarized in Supplementary Tables 1 and 2 (3, 5, 12, 37, 46, 52, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75). Several other studies, some of them randomized clinical trials, include in their sample vertebral compression fractures types A1, A2 and A3 of the AOSpine classification (45, 65, 70, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88). However, in this review we will only focus on burst fractures, namely incomplete or AOSpine type A3 fractures, which are those where kyphoplasty or armed kyphoplasty are most often applied. We have not identified any case series studies on kyphoplasty including complete burst fractures or AOSpine type A4, only sporadic clinical cases and review papers are published regarding this subject (50, 76, 89). The objective of this research selection is to reduce the heterogeneity of the review and thus we excluded from the final analysis the AOSpine types A1 and A2 fractures, which in most centers are successfully treated conservatively. Even so, we agree that in accordance with the principle of anatomical restoration of the vertebral body, some AOSpine types A1 and A2 fractures with more severe degrees of kyphosis may require surgical treatment with kyphoplasty. Several studies report that symptomatic relief and functional recovery occur more quickly in kyphoplasty compared to conservative treatment in these patients (50, 51, 76, 88, 79).
Historically, cementoplasty techniques, that is, the application of bone cement inside the vertebral body, were contraindicated in fractures that affected the posterior wall, namely burst fractures, due to the high risk of intracanal cement leakage. Despite this and due to the initial success in osteoporotic fractures and traumatic compression fractures without reaching the posterior wall, their indication was expanded and studies began to appear regarding burst fractures, in which the risk of increased intracanal extravasation did not materialize. The fracture reaching the posterior wall certainly increases the risk of intracanal cement leakage. Nevertheless, if the cement is applied in a progressive and controlled manner to the anterior third of the vertebral body and its injection is stopped when it reaches the posterior quarter of the vertebral body, the risk of canal extravasation is greatly decreased (90). Supplementary Table 1 bring together the ten studies currently available on kyphoplasty applied exclusively to traumatic burst fractures, and their analysis allows us to verify that the majority of authors applied the combination of kyphoplasty with pedicle instrumentation of the adjacent vertebrae (3, 5, 12, 37, 46, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75). Most studies are retrospective. In fact, there are five prospective studies. In all studies, there was a statistically significant improvement in clinical and functional parameters, restoration of vertebral height and decrease of vertebral and segmental kyphosis. Overall, there was only a residual loss of height and a slight increase in kyphosis throughout the follow-up period, with no clinical repercussions, while complications consisted essentially of cement leakage, always asymptomatic. All authors conclude that this is a safe, minimally invasive procedure, which guarantees satisfactory clinical results, with practically immediate post-operative pain relief and rapid functional recovery. Regarding the imaging aspect, this restoration of the anterior column carried out by a posterior percutaneous transpedicular approach is effective and maintained throughout the studies follow-up periods, which makes it an important alternative to corporectomy, particularly in patients of advanced age and comorbidities. As for expandable intravertebral implants, exclusively in acute traumatic burst fractures, only two main studies were identified (Supplementary Table 2): a retrospective by Hartmann et al. (52), regarding VBS® stents, and a prospective one by Noriega DC (75) et al., regarding Spinejack® devices. Both also address incomplete burst fractures. However, they apply armed kyphoplasty in isolation, without any adjacent pedicle fixation. The first study presents an average follow-up time of 2 years and the second one of 5.6 years. Both conclude that it is a safe and effective minimally invasive therapeutic option, which allows for an anatomical restoration of the vertebral body maintained in the medium term, in a similar way and with potential advantages over kyphoplasty.
Discussion
Kyphoplasty and expandable intravertebral implants introduce the concept of direct fracture reduction (Figs. 4 and 5), which means performed by an expanded balloon or device at the exact fracture location within the vertebral body. If the fracture happens by mechanism in compression, the implants will act the opposite way. This way, they expand the vertebral body, which is the reverse mechanism to the one that led to the fracture, representing therefore a very effective method of fracture reduction (12, 50, 51). The classic indirect reduction by distraction and lordosis maneuvers through pedicle instrumentation of adjacent vertebrae reduces the vertebral body’s cortical ring and the peripheral portions of the vertebral endplates due to the effects of containment of the anterior and posterior longitudinal ligaments and of the intervertebral disc’s annulus fibrous, respectively. On the other hand, according to experimental studies and a few recent clinical papers, direct reduction by kyphoplasty permits the restoration of the vertebral endplates’ central part, correcting its central depression. As such, although scientific evidence on the reduction of endplate central depression is still limited, this concept is highly promising and relevant in post-traumatic vertebral anatomical restoration, as the vertebral endplates morphology reconstruction, in theory, promotes a more suitable disc pressurization and healing, minimizing accelerated disc degeneration and also decreasing its intrusion through the fractured endplate into the weakened vertebral body, which could lead to fracture nonunion and vertebral body flattening (Figs. 4 and 5) (1, 2, 6, 12, 28, 29, 30, 40, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 67, 68, 82, 89, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97). Also, different studies have demonstrated that, once expandable intravertebral implants are correctly positioned, the fear that they increase posterior wall retropulsion in burst compression fractures is unverified. On the contrary, by performing annulotaxis and ligamentotaxis at the time of implant expansion, the increased vertebral body’s height makes the posterior wall to move anteriorly, distancing from the vertebral canal and getting close to its original position, this way restoring the posterior vertebral body’s height and leading to an indirect decompression of the vertebral canal (1, 28, 53, 54, 60, 92, 95, 96, 98). Furthermore, the technique with intermediate pedicle screws fixation depends only on the indirect reduction carried out from adjacent vertebrae. As such, it does not allow for a direct reduction of the central depression of the vertebral endplate, neither for a significant filling of the fractured vertebral body. Moreover, in theory, the presence of intermediate screws in the fractured body may decrease the effectiveness of reducing the posterior wall retropulsion to anterior position during maneuvers, as its space in the vertebral body will be occupied by the intermediate screws themselves. It is also true that, in particular, the isolated posterior distraction maneuver can result in lumbar lordosis flattening and in overstretching healthy adjacent facet joints, which can lead to early degenerative changes (3, 97). Therefore, while pedicle fixation including intermediate screws improves biomechanical stability by providing protection to the fractured vertebral body by indirectly supporting the anterior column by a short fixation, in theory, kyphoplasty techniques associated with adjacent pedicle fixation have the following advantages: a) they ensure stable filling and sustained structural support of the fractured vertebral body, minimizing its post-traumatic flattening and sharing loads with the pedicle instrumentation, which reduces its overload due to tension forces and its risk of failure. Therefore, they increase stability in the fractured vertebral body (circumferential stabilization over the vertebral functional unit), which favors its healing and minimizes the risk of non-union); b) they increase the effectiveness of anatomical restoration, adding a more etiological option of direct reduction which allows for the correction of the central depression of the vertebral endplates, restoring the anatomy of the borders of the intervertebral disc space, allowing for a pressurization of the adjacent intervertebral discs closer to the physiological, and thus minimizing its accelerated degeneration, loss of effective load-damping function and the early onset of the degenerative cascade of the spine; c) The bone cement that fills the vertebral body has antialgic properties that allow for, through a mechanical stabilizing effect on the bone fragments and chemical effect on the local nociceptors, a less painful and faster postoperative functional recovery and smaller rates of chronic residual low back pain. These anatomical, physiological, biomechanical and clinical advantages of kyphoplasty demonstrate the need and importance of complete anatomical reduction of the vertebral body in the treatment of acute vertebral body fractures, which, through this technique can be performed by a percutaneous transpedicular posterior approach (1, 2, 6, 9, 12, 27, 40, 41, 48, 56, 58, 59, 60, 62, 67, 82, 91, 109, 100). Depending on the type of fracture, direct reduction maneuvers with kyphoplasty may be sufficient, or it can be necessary to combine indirect and direct reduction techniques to obtain a more adequate anatomical restoration (Figs. 4 and 5) (1, 2, 6, 9, 12, 28, 29, 30, 41, 45, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 67, 68, 71, 89, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 98, 99, 100).
Demonstration of surgical procedure of adjacent levels pedicle screw instrumentation plus kyphoplasty (A) or armed kyphoplasty (B) – combined indirect and direct reduction techniques, for the goal of achieving total anatomical restoration of the vertebral body, that is, the reduction of the cortical ring and also of the central portion of the vertebral platforms. The second images of the sequences are the indirect fracture reduction by distraction and lordosis maneuvers performed through instrumentation in the pedicles of adjacent vertebrae. Note the reduction of posterior wall retropulsion and restoration of anterior and posterior sagittal heights of the vertebral body. However, central flattening of the upper vertebral platform persists with no complete restoration of the middle sagittal height of the vertebral body (red arrowhead at the third images of the sequences); The fourth images of the sequences represent the direct reduction of vertebral endplates by expansion of the kyphoplasty balloons or the intravertebral expansive implants. Note the elevation of the entire upper vertebral platform (arrowhead); The fifth images of the sequences represent the filling of the balloons or the stabilization of the intravertebral implants with bone cement.
Citation: EFORT Open Reviews 9, 4; 10.1530/EOR-23-0190
Several studies demonstrate the treatment of acute vertebral fractures with kyphoplasty alone (with or without expandable intravertebral implants). However, the important role of pedicle fixation of adjacent vertebrae has come to be understood, particularly in burst fractures, not only as an additional method for indirect reduction of the fracture, but even in cases where direct reduction by isolated kyphoplasty is sufficient and adjacent pedicle instrumentation works as an additional stabilization method (5, 46, 52, 61, 63, 64, 65, 72, 75, 77, 79, 81, 86, 87, 90, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105). Complementing kyphoplasty with short adjacent pedicle fixation allows the fractured vertebral body to be more efficiently protected from compression and rotational forces, minimizing the loads it suffers during the bone healing process. This is particularly important in burst fractures in relation to the posterior wall, as, by allowing them to be unloaded in a reduced position, it minimizes their residual posterior wall retropulsion and favors bone healing in an anatomical position. In the same way, instrumentation also allows for the unloading on the adjacent intervertebral discs that are frequently injured, favoring their more effective and anatomical healing, as well as making pressurization and height more similar to the original ones. For example, He D et al. (101) studied, in a randomized clinical trial carried out over 2 years, 43 traumatic thoracolumbar fractures AOSpine type A3, treated only with kyphoplasty (n = 22) and kyphoplasty associated with adjacent pedicle fixation (n = 21). The authors verified that the last group showed a significantly greater reduction in VAS and improvement in the ODI score, better correction of vertebral kyphosis and a lower loss of correction achieved over time. Furthermore, in the isolated kyphoplasty group there were two patients with refractures and one adjacent fracture, without any other complications. This helps to demonstrate that kyphoplasty combined with adjacent short pedicle instrumentation is an ideal technique, as it associates the stability offered by three-column reconstruction to the morbidity level related to a single percutaneous short-segment posterior approach only (104). The main disadvantage appears to be the need to extract the pedicle instrumentation without arthrodesis after fracture healing, with the aim of avoiding prolonged immobilization of adjacent discs and zygapophyses and their consequent accelerated arthrosis, in addition to allowing mobility to be recovered at these levels and avoiding failure of bars or screws. In theory, after freeing the fixed adjacent levels, a spine with mobility similar to the previous one is obtained, including the fractured vertebral body already healed with an anatomical reduction, or close to it, and without the risk of significant residual flattening, as the vertebral body is internally stabilized and supported by kyphoplasty (37, 90, 106).
Although there are currently no comparative studies between kyphoplasty and armed kyphoplasty (with expandable intravertebral implants) in traumatic fractures, the potential advantages of the devices are the following: (a) more effective restoration of the vertebral body height, as these expandable implants with a hydraulic or mechanic expansion method have a high expansion capacity; (b) more effective maintenance of vertebral height in the medium–long term, as the vertebral body is maintained with internal metallic supports that prevent it from flattening, for example after removing the kyphoplasty balloons, as well as by increasing the vertebral body stiffness and strength because of the implant–cement–bone trabeculae set; (c) decreasing in cement leakage rates in the cases of cylindrical intravertebral implants, such as stents, because, besides creating low-pressure intrasomatic cavities, such as kyphoplasty, these are surrounded by the resistant metal mesh assembly of the implant and impacted bone trabeculae, in addition to allowing for the injection of a smaller amount of cement to obtain stability of the fracture. Furthermore, armed kyphoplasty may be associated with lower rates of pain and adjacent vertebral fractures, probably due to its superior capacity for vertebral reduction and maintenance of this reduction in the long term, which is also associated with a higher quality of life due to improved posture, reduction of tension moments, and relaxation of the paravertebral muscles, minimizing its fatigue. These theoretical conclusions, in comparison with kyphoplasty, have already been demonstrated in some biomechanical studies on human cadavers and in clinical studies regarding fractures of osteoporotic and neoplastic origin, and are therefore likely, but still to be defined, to be similar also regarding fractures of the traumatic nature (28, 29, 30, 40, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 54, 59, 61, 62, 65, 75, 103, 105, 107). Furthermore, we consider that currently there are two main types of expandable intravertebral implants with different indications for vertebral fractures: reducing and space-occupying implants, which replace the majority of the interior of the vertebral body, such as VBS® stents; and reducing implants, which elevate vertebral endplates and preserve intact bone trabeculae, such as Spinejack®. However, their indications are not the subject of this work (51, 52). It should be noted that in the case of traumatic fractures in resistant healthy young bone, sometimes the hydraulic expansion of kyphoplasty or hydraulic expansion intravertebral implants (e.g. VBS® stents) may not be sufficient for a complete reduction of the vertebral body (51, 52, 79). The limitation of this mechanism is that the expansion does not occur if bone resistance is superior to the hydraulic pressure force of the balloon expansion. Therefore, it makes sense to prefer, in resistant young bone with preserved cortical shell, the use of intravertebral devices with mechanical expansion (e.g. SpineJack®), which have a superior expansion force, theoretically allowing for a more effective elevation of the vertebral endplates and gain in vertebral height (51, 52).
Regarding the filling of the vertebral body after kyphoplasty, most studies apply biologically inert cement of polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) type. However, some surgeons, faced with young patients with healthy bone, prefer the options of the biologically active bone cement calcium phosphate and even cancellous bone graft, seeking, in this way, to obtain a vertebra morphologically and biomechanically more similar to the native vertebra, allowing for a more physiological load distribution compared to PMMA, which in an active patient who will require significant effort from their spine in the long term, can affect the normal balance of the rachis in terms of elasticity and segmental stiffness, possibly leading to early discovertebral degeneration. Therefore, the calcium phosphate cement is osteoconductive and is slowly absorbed and replaced by bone, while the cancellous bone provides a bone matrix capable of osteoconduction and osteoinduction, whose objective is to be colonized by osteoprogenitor cells, vascular invasion, and bone incorporation (2, 3, 6, 12, 50, 64, 65, 89, 97, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114). Different studies have evaluated the isolated intrasomatic application of bone graft in vertebral fractures and verified a progressive flattening of these vertebrae and graft resorption, most probably due to the insufficient mechanical support capacity of the isolated bone graft, which has gone through excessive loads that compromised its incorporation and integrity (4, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119). This way, in order to avoid this, we believe that the application of bone graft inside intravertebral implants (such as stents) is essential, assuring both the maintenance of vertebral height and the protection the bone graft, also minimizing its resorption until full incorporation is achieved. As a result, we obtain a healed vertebral body with a metallic endoskeleton, which is completely filled by the incorporated bone (51, 52, 89, 98). Nonetheless, long-term prospective studies are needed in order to determine the benefits of intrasomatic bone graft application, or its substitute, together with intravertebral implants in type of fractures (4, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119).
Despite favorable outcomes in the studies regarding kyphoplasty in acute compression fractures, around half of the studies are prospective and the remaining retrospective, which represents some limitations and bias risk of the analysis. Also, follow-up periods vary between 14.6 months and 6 years, which demonstrates an important limitation in its generalization as medium and long-term results. Scientific literature remains embryonic on these techniques for anatomical reconstruction of burst-type thoracolumbar vertebral fractures. As such, more prospective, randomized, and large-scale blinded studies are needed to clearly confirm the advantages of this promising surgical option.
Conclusion
The current scientific literature demonstrates favorable outcomes in kyphoplasty as a minimally invasive method of transpedicular access for reconstruction of the anterior column in burst fractures. The efficacy and greater safety of kyphoplasty in vertebral body reconstruction compared to anterior approaches for vertebral body replacement, as well as the combination of kyphoplasty with adjacent pedicle fixation and the use of expandable intravertebral implants (armed kyphoplasty) appear to, theoretically, offer clear advantages and to be promising in the treatment of this type of fractures. These techniques can provide a complete reduction of the vertebral body anatomy closer to its original one, performed in a common, safe and minimally invasive transpedicular posterior access, allowing for a clinical-functional and imaging improvement, which can be maintained in the medium–long term. However, the literature remains embryonic on this promising option for anatomical reconstruction of burst-type thoracolumbar vertebral fractures. More prospective, randomized, and large-scale blinded studies are needed to determine the best surgical therapeutic option, particularly regarding the type of kyphoplasty, with or without expandable intravertebral implants, types of implants and respective indications, with or without adjacent pedicle fixation.
Supplementary materials
This is linked to the online version of the paper at https://doi.org/10.1530/EOR-23-0190.
Declaration of interest
The author declares that there is no conflict of interest that could be perceived as prejudicing the impartiality of the study reported.
Funding
This research did not receive any specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sector.
References
- 1↑
Krüger A, Schmuck M, Noriega DC, Ruchholtz S, Baroud G, & Oberkircher L. Percutaneous dorsal instrumentation of vertebral burst fractures value of additional percutaneous intravertebral reposition-cadaver study. BioMed Research International 2015 2015 434873–434873. (https://doi.org/10.1155/2015/434873)
- 2↑
Verlaan JJ, van Helden WH, Oner FC, Verbout AJ, & Dhert WJA. Balloon vertebroplasty with calcium phosphate cement augmentation for direct restoration of traumatic thoracolumbar vertebral fractures. Spine 2002 27 543–548. (https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-200203010-00021)
- 3↑
Korovessis P, Repantis T, Petsinis G, Iliopoulos P, & Hadjipavlou A. Direct reduction of thoracolumbar burst fractures by means of balloon kyphoplasty with calcium phosphate and stabilization with pedicle-screw instrumentation and fusion. Spine 2008 33 E100–E108. (https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181646b07)
- 4↑
Daniaux H. Transpedicular repositioning and spongioplasty in fractures of the vertebral bodies of the lower thoracic and lumbar spine. Der Unfallchirurg 1986 89 197–213.
- 5↑
Marco RA, Meyer BC, & Kushwaha VP. Thoracolumbar burst fractures treated with posterior decompression and pedicle screw instrumentation supplemented with balloon-assisted vertebroplasty and calcium phosphate reconstruction. Surgical technique. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery 2010 92(Supplement 1 Pt 1) 67–76. (https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.I.01236)
- 6↑
Verlaan JJ, Somers I, Dhert WJA, & Oner FC. Clinical and radiological results 6 years after treatment of traumatic thoracolumbar burst fractures with pedicle screw instrumentation and balloon assisted endplate reduction. Spine Journal 2015 15 1172–1178. (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2013.11.044)
- 7↑
Kramer DL, Rodgers WB, & Mansfield FL. Transpedicular instrumentation and short-segment fusion of thoracolumbar fractures: a prospective study using a single instrumentation system. Journal of Orthopaedic Trauma 1995 9 499–506. (https://doi.org/10.1097/00005131-199509060-00007)
- 8↑
Parker JW, Lane JR, Karaikovic EE, & Gaines RW. Successful short-segment instrumentation and fusion for thoracolumbar spine fractures: a consecutive 41/2-year series. Spine 2000 25 1157–1170. (https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-200005010-00018)
- 9↑
Speth MJ, Oner FC, Kadic MA, de Klerk LW, & Verbout AJ. Recurrent kyphosis after posterior stabilisation of thoracolumbar fractures: 24 cases treated with a Dick internal fixator followed for 1.5 to 4 years. Acta Orthopaedica Scandinavica 1995 66 406–410. (https://doi.org/10.3109/17453679508995575)
- 10↑
McCormack T, Karaikovic E, & Gaines RW. The load sharing classification of spine fractures. Spine 1994 19 1741–1744. (https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-199408000-00014)
- 11↑
Knop C, Bastian L, Lange U, Oeser M, Zdichavsky M, & Blauth M. Complications in surgical treatment of thoracolumbar injuries. European Spine Journal 2002 11 214–226. (https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-001-0382-6)
- 12↑
Verlaan JJ, Dhert WJ, Verbout AJ, & Oner FC. Balloon vertebroplasty in combination with pedicle screw instrumentation: a novel technique to treat thoracic and lumbar burst fractures. Spine 2005 30 E73–E79. (https://doi.org/10.1097/01.brs.0000152162.64015.fb)
- 13↑
Been HD, & Bouma GJ. Comparison of two types of surgery for thoracolumbar burst fractures: combined anterior and posterior stabilisation vs. posterior instrumentation only. Acta Neurochirurgica (Wien) 1999 141 349–357. (https://doi.org/10.1007/s007010050310)
- 14↑
Knop C, Blauth M, Buhren V, Hax PM, Kinzl L, Mutschler W, Pommer A, Ulrich C, Wagner S, Weckbach A, et al.Surgical treatment of injuries of the thoracolumbar transition. 2: operation and roentgenologic findings. Der Unfallchirurg 2000 103 1032–1047. (https://doi.org/10.1007/s001130050667)
- 15↑
Carl AL, Tranmer BI, & Sachs BL. Anterolateral dynamized instrumentation and fusion for unstable thoracolumbar and lumbar burst fractures. Spine 1997 22 686–690. (https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-199703150-00022)
- 16↑
Benson DR, Burkus JK, Montesano PX, Sutherland TB, & McLain RF. Unstable thoracolumbar and lumbar burst fractures treated with the AO fixateur interne. Journal of Spinal Disorders 1992 5 335–343. (https://doi.org/10.1097/00002517-199209000-00012)
- 17↑
McLain RF, Sparling E, & Benson DR. Early failure of short-segment pedicle instrumentation for thoracolumbar fractures: a preliminary report. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery 1993 75 162–167. (https://doi.org/10.2106/00004623-199302000-00002)
- 18↑
Verlaan JJ, Diekerhof CH, Buskens E, van der Tweel I, Verbout AJ, Dhert WJ, & Oner FC. Surgical treatment of traumatic fractures of the thoracic and lumbar spine: a systematic review of the literature on techniques, complications, and outcome. Spine 2004 29 803–814. (https://doi.org/10.1097/01.brs.0000116990.31984.a9)
- 19↑
Palmisani M, Gasbarrini A, Brodano GB, De Iure F, Cappuccio M, Boriani L, Amendola L, & Boriani S. Minimally invasive percutaneous fixation in the treatment of thoracic and lumbar spine fractures. European Spine Journal 2009 18(Supplement 1) 71–74. (https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-009-0989-6)
- 20↑
Dick JC, Jones MP, Zdeblick TA, Kunz DN, & Horton WC. A biomechanical comparison evaluating the use of intermediate screws and cross-linkage in lumbar pedicle fixation. Journal of Spinal Disorders 1994 7 402–407. (https://doi.org/10.1097/00002517-199410000-00006)
- 21↑
Li K, Zhang W, Liu D, Xu H, Geng W, Luo D, & Ma J. Pedicle screw fixation combined with intermediate screw at the fracture level for treatment of thoracolumbar fractures: a meta-analysis. Medicine 2016 95 e4574. (https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000004574)
- 22↑
Zhang C, & Liu Y. Combined pedicle screw fixation at the fracture vertebrae versus conventional method for thoracolumbar fractures: a meta-analysis. International Journal of Surgery 2018 53 38–47. (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsu.2018.03.002)
- 23↑
Tong MJ, Tang Q, Wang CG, Xiang GH, Chen Q, Xu HZ, & Tian NF. Efficacy of using intermediate screws in short-segment fixation for thoracolumbar fractures: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. World Neurosurgery 2018 110 e271–e280. (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wneu.2017.10.157)
- 24↑
Ma M, Dong H, Yu H, Ruan B, Xu X, Tao Y, Wang Y, Gu J. Comparison of different segments in the fixation of thoracolumbar fractures: a Bayesian network meta-analysis. Injury 2022 53 2579–2587.
- 25↑
Kapoen C, Liu Y, Bloemers FW, & Deunk J. Pedicle screw fixation of thoracolumbar fractures: conventional short segment versus short segment with intermediate screws at the fracture level-a systematic review and meta-analysis. European Spine Journal 2020 29 2491–2504. (https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-020-06479-4)
- 26↑
Mahar A, Kim C, Wedemeyer M, Mitsunaga L, Odell T, Johnson B, & Garfin S. Short-segment fixation of lumbar burst fractures using pedicle fixation at the level of the fracture. Spine 2007 32 1503–1507. (https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e318067dd24)
- 27↑
Mermelstein LE, McLain RF, & Yerby SA. Reinforcement of thoracolumbar burst fractures with calcium phosphate cement. A biomechanical study. Spine 1998 23 664–670. (https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-199803150-00004)
- 28↑
Klezl Z, Majeed H, Bommireddy R, & John J. Early results after vertebral body stenting for fractures of the anterior column of the thoracolumbar spine. Injury 2011 42 1038–1042. (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.injury.2011.04.006)
- 29↑
Rotter R, Martin H, Fuerderer S, Gabl M, Roeder C, Heini P, & Mittlmeier T. Verteb ral body stenting a new method for vertebral augmentation versus kyphoplasty. European Spine Journal 2010 19 916–923. (https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-010-1341-x)
- 30↑
Vanni D, Pantalone A, Bigossi F, Pineto F, Lucantoni D, & Salini V. New perspective for third generation percutaneous vertebral augmentation procedures preliminary results at 12 months. Journal of Craniovertebral Junction and Spine 2012 3 47–51. (https://doi.org/10.4103/0974-8237.116537)
- 31↑
Costa F, Ortolina A, Cardia A, Sassi M, De Santis A, Borroni M, Savoia G, & Fornari M. Efficacy of treatment with percutaneous vertebroplasty and kyphoplasty for traumatic fracture of thoracolumbar junction. Journal of Neurosurgical Sciences 2009 53 13–17.
- 32↑
Cho DY, Lee WY, & Sheu PC. Treatment of thoracolumbar burst fractures with polymethyl methacrylate vertebroplasty and short-segment pedicle screw fixation. Neurosurgery 2003 53 1354–136 1. (https://doi.org/10.1227/01.neu.0000093200.74828.2f)
- 33↑
Papanastassiou ID, Phillips FM, Van Meirhaeghe J, Berenson JR, Andersson GB, Chung G, Small BJ, Aghayev K, & Vrionis FD. Comparing effects of kyphoplasty, vertebroplasty, and non-surgical management in a systematic review of randomized and non-randomized controlled studies. European Spine Journal 2012 21 1826–1843. (https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-012-2314-z)
- 34↑
Cornelis FH, Joly Q, Nouri-Neuville M, Ben-Ammar M, Kastler B, Kastler A, Amoretti N, & Hauger O. Innovative spine implants for improved augmentation and stability in neoplastic vertebral compression fracture. Medicina 2019 55 426. (https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina55080426)
- 35↑
McGirt MJ, Parker SL, Wolinsky JP, Witham TF, Bydon A, & Gokaslan ZL. Vertebroplasty and kyphoplasty for the treatment of vertebral compression fractures: an evidenced-based review of the literature. Spine Journal 2009 9 501–508. (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2009.01.003)
- 36↑
Vanni D, Galzio R, Kazakova A, Pantalone A, Grillea G, Bartolo M, Salini V, & Magliani V. Third-generation percutaneous vertebral augmentation systems. Journal of Spine Surgery 2016 2 13–20. (https://doi.org/10.21037/jss.2016.02.01)
- 37↑
Fuentes S, Blondel B, Metellus P, Gaudart J, Adetchessi T, & Dufour H. Percutaneous kyphoplasty and pedicle screw fixation for the management of thoraco-lumbar burst fractures. European Spine Journal 2010 19 1281–1287. (https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-010-1444-4)
- 38↑
Oner FC, Dhert WJ, & Verlaan JJ. Less invasive anterior column reconstruction in thoracolumbar fractures. Injury 2005 36(Supplement 2) B82–B89. (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.injury.2005.06.018)
- 39↑
Feltes C, Fountas KN, Machinis T, Nikolakakos LG, Dimopoulos V, Davydov R, Kassam M, Johnston KW, & Robinson JS. Immediate and early postoperative pain relief after kyphoplasty without significant restoration of vertebral body height in acute osteoporotic vertebral fractures. Neurosurgical Focus 2005 18 e5. (https://doi.org/10.3171/foc.2005.18.3.6)
- 40↑
Verlaan JJ, van de Kraats EB, Oner FC, van Walsum T, Niessen WJ, & Dhert WJ. The reduction of endplate fractures during balloon vertebroplasty: a detailed radiological analysis of the treatment of burst fractures using pedicle screws, balloon vertebroplasty, and calcium phosphate cement. Spine 2005 30 1840–1845. (https://doi.org/10.1097/01.brs.0000173895.19334.e2)
- 41↑
Muto M, Greco B, Setola F, Vassallo P, Ambrosanio G, & Guarnieri G. Vertebral body stenting system for the treatment of osteoporotic vertebral compression fracture: follow-up at 12 months in 20 cases. Neuroradiology Journal 2011 24 610–619. (https://doi.org/10.1177/197140091102400418)
- 42↑
Rotter R, Schmitt L, Gierer P, Schmitz KP, Noriega D, Mittlmeier T, Meeder PJ, & Martin H. Minimum cement volume required in vertebral body augmentation--a biomechanical study comparing the permanent SpineJack device and balloon kyphoplasty in traumatic fracture. Clinical Biomechanics 2015 30 720–725. (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2015.04.015)
- 43↑
Krüger A, Baroud G, Noriega D, Figiel J, Dorschel C, Ruchholtz S, & Oberkircher L. Height restoration and maintenance after treating unstable osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures by cement augmentation is dependent on the cement volume used. Clinical Biomechanics 2013 28 725–730. (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2013.06.007)
- 44↑
Voggenreiter G. Balloon kyphoplasty is effective in deformity correction of osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures. Spine 2005 30 2806–2812. (https://doi.org/10.1097/01.brs.0000190885.85675.a0)
- 45↑
Bironneau A, Bouquet C, Millet-Barbe B, Leclercq N, Pries P, & Gayet LE. Percutaneous internal fixation combined with kyphoplasty for neurologically intact thoracolumbar fractures: a prospective cohort study of 24 patients with one year of follow-up. Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Surgery and Research 2011 97 389–395. (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.otsr.2011.02.009)
- 46↑
Hartmann F, Gercek E, Leiner L, & Rommens PM. Kyphoplasty as an alternative treatment of traumatic thoracolumbar burst fractures Magerl type A3. Injury 2012 43 409–415. (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.injury.2010.03.025)
- 47↑
Gioia G, Mandelli D, & Gogue R. Treatment of typical amyelic somatic fractures with kyphoplasty and calcium phosphate cement: a critical analysis. European Spine Journal 2012 21(Supplement 1) S108–S111. (https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-012-2225-z)
- 48↑
Oner FC, Verlaan JJ, Verbout AJ, & Dhert WJA. Cement augmentation techniques in traumatic thoracolumbar spine fractures. Spine 2006 31(Supplement) S89–S 104. (https://doi.org/10.1097/01.brs.0000217950.60516.e6)
- 49↑
Disch AC, & Schmoelz W. Cement augmentation in a thoracolumbar fracture model: reduction and stability after balloon kyphoplasty versus vertebral body stenting. Spine 2014 39 E1147–E1153. (https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000000470)
- 50↑
Moura DFL, & Gabriel JP. Intravertebral expandable implants in thoracolumbar vertebral compression fractures. Acta Ortopédica Brasileira 2022 30 e245117. (https://doi.org/10.1590/1413-785220223003e245117)
- 51↑
Moura DL, & Gabriel JP. Expandable intravertebral implants: a narrative review on the concept, biomechanics, and outcomes in traumatology. Cureus 2021 13 e17795. (https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.17795)
- 52↑
Hartmann F, Griese M, Dietz SO, Kuhn S, Rommens PM, & Gercek E. Two-year results of vertebral body stenting for the treatment of traumatic incomplete burst fractures. Minimally Invasive Therapy and Allied Technologies 2015 24 161–166. (https://doi.org/10.3109/13645706.2014.962546)
- 53↑
Diel P, Röder C, Perler G, Vordemvenne T, Scholz M, Kandziora F, Fürderer S, Eiskjaer S, Maestretti G, Rotter R, et al.Radiographic and safety details of vertebral body stenting results from a multicenter chart review. BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders 2013 14 233–233. (https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2474-14-233)
- 54↑
Thaler M, Lechner R, Nogler M, Gstöttner M, & Bach C. Surgical procedure and initial radiographic results of a new augmentation technique for vertebral compression fractures. European Spine Journal 2013 22 1608–1616. (https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-012-2603-6)
- 55↑
Werner CM, Osterhoff G, Schlickeiser J, Jenni R, Wanner GA, Ossendorf C, & Simmen HP. Vertebral body stenting versus kyphoplasty for the treatment of osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures a randomized trial. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery 2013 95 577–584. (https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.L.00024)
- 56↑
Lin JH, Wang SH, Lin EY, & Chiang YH. Better height restoration, greater kyphosis correction, and fewer refractures of cemented vertebrae by using an intravertebral reduction device a 1-year follow-up study. World Neurosurgery 2016 90 391–396. (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wneu.2016.03.009)
- 57↑
Noriega D, Krüger A, Ardura F, Hansen-Algenstaedt N, Hassel F, Barreau X, & Beyerlein J. Clinical outcome after the use of a new craniocaudal expandable implant for vertebral compression fracture treatment one year results from a prospective multicentric study. BioMed Research International 2015 2015 927813–927813. (https://doi.org/10.1155/2015/927813)
- 58↑
Noriega DC, Ramajo RH, Lite IS, Toribio B, Corredera R, Ardura F, & Krüger A. Safety and clinical performance of kyphoplasty and SpineJack((r)) procedures in the treatment of osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures a pilot, monocentric, investigator-initiated study. Osteoporosis International 2016 27 2047–2055. (https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-016-3494-x)
- 59↑
Noriega DC, Rodríguez-Monsalve F, Ramajo R, Lite IS, Toribio B, & Ardura F. Long-term safety and clinical performance of kyphoplasty and SpineJack(r) procedures in the treatment of osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures a pilot, monocentric, investigator-initiated study. Osteoporosis International 2019 30 637–645. (https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-018-4773-5)
- 60↑
Baeesa SS, Krueger A, Aragón FA, & Noriega DC. The efficacy of a percutaneous expandable titanium device in anatomical reduction of vertebral compression fractures of the thoracolumbar spine. Saudi Medical Journal 2015 36 52–60. (https://doi.org/10.15537/smj.2015.1.9463)
- 61↑
Noriega D, Maestretti G, Renaud C, Francaviglia N, Ould-Slimane M, Queinnec S, Ekkerlein H, Hassel F, Gumpert R, Sabatier P, et al.Clinical performance and safety of 108 SpineJack implantations 1-year results of a prospective multicentre single-arm registry study. BioMed Research International 2015 2015 173872–173872. (https://doi.org/10.1155/2015/173872)
- 62↑
Noriega D, Marcia S, Theumann N, Blondel B, Simon A, Hassel F, Maestretti G, Petit A, Weidle PA, Mandly AG, et al.A prospective, international, randomized, noninferiority study comparing an implantable titanium vertebral augmentation device versus balloon kyphoplasty in the reduction of vertebral compression fractures (SAKOS study). Spine Journal 2019 19 1782–1795. (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2019.07.009)
- 63↑
Kerschbaumer G, Gaulin B, Ruatti S, Tonetti J, & Boudissa M. Clinical and radiological outcomes in thoracolumbar fractures using the SpineJack device A prospective study of seventy-four patients with a two point three year mean of follow-up. International Orthopaedics 2019 43 2773–2779. (https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-019-04391-1)
- 64↑
Maestretti G, Cremer C, Otten P, & Jakob RP. Prospective study of standalone balloon kyphoplasty with calcium phosphate cement augmentation in traumatic fractures. European Spine Journal 2007 16 601–610. (https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-006-0258-x)
- 65↑
Maestretti G, Sutter P, Monnard E, Ciarpaglini R, Wahl P, Hoogewoud H, & Gautier E. A prospective study of percutaneous balloon kyphoplasty with calcium phosphate cement in traumatic vertebral fractures 10-year results. European Spine Journal 2014 23 1354–1360. (https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-014-3206-1)
- 66↑
Fuentes S, Metellus P, Fondop J, Pech-Gourg G, Dufour H, & Grisoli F. Percutaneous pedicle screw fixation and kyphoplasty for management of thoracolumbar burst fractures. Neurochirurgie 2007 53 272–276. French. (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuchi.2007.04.006)
- 67↑
Fürderer S, Anders M, Schwindling B, Salick M, Düber C, Wenda K, Urban R, Glück M, & Eysel P. Vertebral body stenting. A method for repositioning and augmenting vertebral compression fractures. Der Orthopade 2002 31 356–361. (https://doi.org/10.1007/s00132-001-0275-8)
- 68↑
Muto M, Marcia S, Guarnieri G, & Pereira V. Assisted techniques for vertebral cementoplasty why should we do it? European Journal of Radiology 2015 84 783–788. (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2014.04.002)
- 69↑
Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, Shamseer L, Tetzlaff JM, Akl EA, Brennan SE, et al.The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 2021 372 n71. (https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71)
- 70↑
Afzal S, Akbar S, & Dhar SA. Short segment pedicle screw instrumentation and augmentation vertebroplasty in lumbar burst fractures: an experience. European Spine Journal 2008 17 336–341. (https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-008-0587-z)
- 71↑
Blondel B, Fuentes S, Pech-Gourg G, Adetchessi T, Tropiano P, & Dufour H. Percutaneous management of thoracolumbar burst fractures: evolution of techniques and strategy. Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Surgery and Research 2011 97 527–532. (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.otsr.2011.03.020)
- 72↑
Zhang L, Zou J, Gan M, Shi J, Li J, & Yang H. Treatment of thoracolumbar burst fractures: short-segment pedicle instrumentation versus kyphoplasty. Acta Orthopaedica Belgica 2013 79 718–725.
- 73↑
Caruso G, Gildone A, Lorusso V, Lombardi E, Andreotti M, Gerace E, & Massari L. Percutaneous fixation and balloon kyphoplasty for the treatment of A3 thoracolumbar fractures. Journal of Clinical Orthopaedics and Trauma 2019 10(Supplement 1) S163–S167. (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcot.2018.12.012)
- 74↑
Collinet A, Charles YP, Ntilikina Y, Tuzin N, & Steib JP. Analysis of intervertebral discs adjacent to thoracolumbar A3 fractures treated by percutaneous instrumentation and kyphoplasty. Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Surgery and Research 2020 106 1221–1226. (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.otsr.2020.05.006)
- 75↑
Noriega DC, Crespo-Sanjuan J, Olan WJ, Hernandez-Ramajo R, Bell DP, Sanz JJC, Hernandez GJL, Sanchez-Lite I, & Ardura F. Treatment of thoracolumbar Type A3 fractures using a percutaneous intravertebral expandable titanium implant: long-term follow-up results of a pilot Single Center study. Pain Physician 2021 24 E631–E638.
- 76↑
Vaccaro AR, Oner C, Kepler CK, Dvorak M, Schnake K, Bellabarba C, Reinhold M, Aarabi B, Kandziora F, Chapman J, et al.AOSpine thoracolumbar spine injury classification system: fracture description, neurological status, and key modifiers. Spine 2013 38 2028–2037. (https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e3182a8a381)
- 77↑
Teyssédou S, Saget M, Prébet R, Leclercq N, Vendeuvre T, & Pries P. Evaluation of percutaneous surgery in the treatment of thoracolumbar fractures. Preliminary results of a prospective study on 65 patients. Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Surgery and Research 2012 98 39–47. (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.otsr.2011.08.009)
- 78↑
Masoudi MS, Haghnegahdar A, Ghaffarpasand F, & Ilami G. Functional recovery following early kyphoplasty versus conservative management in stable Thoracuolumbar fractures in parachute jumpers: a randomized clinical trial. Clinical Spine Surgery 2017 30 E1066–E1073. (https://doi.org/10.1097/BSD.0000000000000546)
- 79↑
Schmelzer-Schmied N, Cartens C, Meeder PJ, & Dafonseca K. Comparison of kyphoplasty with use of a calcium phosphate cement and non-operative therapy in patients with traumatic non-osteoporotic vertebral fractures. European Spine Journal 2009 18 624–629. (https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-008-0880-x)
- 80↑
Zairi F, Court C, Tropiano P, Charles YP, Tonetti J, Fuentes S, Litrico S, Deramond H, Beaurain J, Orcel P, et al.Minimally invasive management of thoraco-lumbar fractures: combined percutaneous fixation and balloon kyphoplasty. Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Surgery and Research 2012 98(6) S105–S111. (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.otsr.2012.06.004)
- 81↑
de Falco R, & Bocchetti A. Balloon kyphoplasty for pure traumatic thoracolumbar fractures: retrospective analysis of 61 cases focusing on restoration of vertebral height. European Spine Journal 2014 23(Supplement 6) 664–670. (https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-014-3548-8)
- 82↑
Korovessis P, Mpountogianni E, & Syrimpeis V. Percutaneous pedicle screw fixation plus kyphoplasty for thoracolumbar fractures A2, A3 and B2. European Spine Journal 2017 26 1492–1498. (https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-016-4743-6)
- 83↑
Grelat M, Madkouri R, Comby PO, Fahed E, Lemogne B, & Thouant P. Mid-term clinical and radiological outcomes after kyphoplasty in the treatment of thoracolumbar traumatic vertebral compression fractures. World Neurosurgery 2018 115 e386–e392. (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wneu.2018.04.060)
- 84↑
Caruso G, Lombardi E, Andreotti M, Lorusso V, Gildone A, Padovani S, & Massari L. Minimally invasive fixation techniques for thoracolumbar fractures: comparison between percutaneous pedicle screw with intermediate screw (PPSIS) and percutaneous pedicle screw with kyphoplasty (PPSK). European Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Traumatology 2018 28 849–858. (https://doi.org/10.1007/s00590-018-2122-1)
- 85↑
Piazzolla A, Solarino G, Bizzoca D, Parato C, Monteleone G, Dicuonzo F, & Moretti B. The pedicle instrumentation and percutaneous elevation (Pi.Pe): a new cementless surgical technique in type A post-traumatic vertebral fractures. European Spine Journal 2018 27(Supplement 2) 182–189. (https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-018-5602-4)
- 86↑
Francaviglia N, Villa A, Maiello M, Costantino G, Alessandrello RF, Meli F, Odierna Contino A, Lipani R, Fiorenza V, Lo Duca B, et al.Reconstruction of vertebral body in thoracolumbar AO type A post-traumatic fractures by balloon kyphoplasty: a series of 85 patients with a long follow-up and review of the literature. Journal of Neurosurgical Sciences 2022 66 193–199. (https://doi.org/10.23736/S0390-5616.19.04628-9)
- 87↑
Salle H, Meynard A, Auditeau E, Gantois C, Rouchaud A, Mounayer C, Faure P, & Caire F. Treating traumatic thoracolumbar spine fractures using minimally invasive percutaneous stabilization plus balloon kyphoplasty: a 102-patient series. Journal of Neurointerventional Surgery 2021 13 848–853. (https://doi.org/10.1136/neurintsurg-2020-017238)
- 88↑
Zairi F, Aboukais R, Marinho P, Allaoui M, & Assaker R. Minimally invasive percutaneous stabilization plus balloon kyphoplasty for the treatment of type A thoraco lumbar spine fractures: minimum 4 year's follow-up. Journal of Neurosurgical Sciences 2014 58 169–175.
- 89↑
Moura DL, & Ribeiro PG. Anatomical reconstruction of complete burst vertebral fracture case report—combined reduction methods and armed kyphoplasty with stents filled with bone graft. Journal of Spine Surgery 2023 9 357–368. (https://doi.org/10.21037/jss-22-117)
- 90↑
Zaryanov AV, Park DK, Khalil JG, Baker KC, & Fischgrund JS. Cement augmentation in vertebral burst fractures. Neurosurgical Focus 2014 37 E5. (https://doi.org/10.3171/2014.5.FOCUS1495)
- 91↑
Oner FC, van der Rijt RR, Ramos LM, Dhert WJ, & Verbout AJ. Changes in the disc space after fractures of the thoracolumbar spine. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery 1998 80 833–839. (https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620x.80b5.8830)
- 92↑
Fredrickson BE, Edwards WT, Rauschning W, Bayley JC, & Yuan HA. Vertebral burst fractures: an experimental, morphologic, and radiographic study. Spine 1992 17 1012–1021. (https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-199209000-00002)
- 93↑
Harrington RM, Budorick T, Hoyt J, Anderson PA, & Tencer AF. Biomechanics of indirect reduction of bone retropulsed into the spinal canal in vertebral fracture. Spine 1993 18 692–699. (https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-199305000-00003)
- 94↑
Noriega DC, Marcia S, Ardura F, Lite IS, Marras M, & Saba L. Diffusion-weighted MRI assessment of adjacent disc degeneration after thoracolumbar vertebral fractures. Cardiovascular and Interventional Radiology 2016 39 1306–1314. (https://doi.org/10.1007/s00270-016-1369-3)
- 95↑
Olivier E, Beldame J, Ould-Slimane M, Puech N, Lefebvre B, Marouteau-Pasquier N, Defives T, & Duparc F. Treatment of thoracolumbar junction burst fractures (Magerl A3) by balloon kyphoplasty: anatomic study. Revue de Chirurgie Orthopédique et Reparatrice de l’Appareil Moteur 2007 93 666–673. (https://doi.org/10.1016/s0035-1040(0773251-8)
- 96↑
Krüger A, Oberkircher L, Figiel J, Floßdorf F, Bolzinger F, Noriega DC, & Ruchholtz S. S Height restoration of osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures using different intravertebral reduction devices a cadaveric study. Spine Journal 2015 15 1092–1098. (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2013.06.094)
- 97↑
Korovessis P, Hadjipavlou A, & Repantis T. Minimal invasive short posterior instrumentation plus balloon kyphoplasty with calcium phosphate for burst and severe compression lumbar fractures. Spine 2008 33 658–667. (https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e318166e0bb)
- 98↑
Venier A, Roccatagliata L, Isalberti M, Scarone P, Kuhlen DE, Reinert M, Bonaldi G, Hirsch JA, & Cianfoni A. Armed kyphoplasty an indirect central canal decompression technique in burst fractures. AJNR. American Journal of Neuroradiology 2019 40 1965–1972. (https://doi.org/10.3174/ajnr.A6285)
- 99↑
Verlaan JJ, Dhert WJ, & Oner FC. Intervertebral disc viability after burst fractures of the thoracic and lumbar spine treated with pedicle screw fixation and direct end-plate restoration. Spine Journal 2013 13 217–221. (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2012.02.032)
- 100↑
Teyssédou S, Saget M, Gayet LE, Pries P, Brèque C, & Vendeuvre T. Radiologic study of disc behavior following compression fracture of the thoracolumbar hinge managed by kyphoplasty: a 52-case series. Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Surgery and Research 2016 102 61–65. (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.otsr.2015.11.011)
- 101↑
He D, Wu L, Sheng X, Xiao Q, Zhu Y, Yu W, Liu F, & Zhu K. Internal fixation with percutaneous kyphoplasty compared with simple percutaneous kyphoplasty for thoracolumbar burst fractures in elderly patients: a prospective randomized controlled trial. European Spine Journal 2013 22 2256–2263. (https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-013-2972-5)
- 102↑
Garnon J, Doré B, Auloge P, Caudrelier J, Dalili D, Ramamurthy N, Koch G, Cazzato RL, & Gangi A. Efficacy of the vertebral body stenting system for the restoration of vertebral height in acute traumatic compression fractures in a non-osteoporotic population. Cardiovascular and Interventional Radiology 2019 42 1579–1587. (https://doi.org/10.1007/s00270-019-02265-y)
- 103↑
Vendeuvre T, Brossard P, Pic JB, Billot M, Gayet LE, Pries P, Teyssédou S, Germaneau A, & Rigoard P. Vertebral balloon kyphoplasty versus vertebral body stenting in non-osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures at the thoracolumbar junction: a comparative radiological study and finite element analysis (BONEXP study). European Spine Journal 2021 30 3089–3098. (https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-021-06785-5)
- 104↑
Acosta FL, Aryan HE, Taylor WR, & Ames CP. Kyphoplasty-augmented short-segment pedicle screw fixation of traumatic lumbar burst fractures: initial clinical experience and literature review. Neurosurgical Focus 2005 18 e9. (https://doi.org/10.3171/foc.2005.18.3.10)
- 105↑
Van Meirhaeghe J, Bastian L, Boonen S, Ranstam J, Tillman JB, Wardlaw D & FREE Investigators. A randomized trial of balloon kyphoplasty and nonsurgical management for treating acute vertebral compression fractures: vertebral body kyphosis correction and surgical parameters. Spine 2013 38 971–983. (https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e31828e8e22)
- 106↑
Zhang C, Ouyang B, Li P, Wang L, Luo L, Zhao C, Liu L, Tu B, Hou T, Arnold P, et al.A retrospective study of thoracolumbar fractures treated with fixation and nonfusion surgery of intravertebral bone graft assisted with balloon kyphoplasty. World Neurosurgery 2017 108 798–806. (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wneu.2017.08.093)
- 107↑
Cianfoni A, Distefano D, Pravatà E, Espeli V, Pesce G, Mordasini P, La Barbera L, Scarone P, & Bonaldi G. Vertebral body stent augmentation to reconstruct the anterior column in neoplastic extreme osteolysis. Journal of Neurointerventional Surgery 2019 11 313–318. (https://doi.org/10.1136/neurintsurg-2018-014231)
- 108↑
Grafe IA, Baier M, Nöldge G, Weiss C, Fonseca K, Hillmeier J, Libicher M, Rudofsky G, Metzner C, Nawroth P, et al.Calcium-phosphate and polymethylmethacrylate cement in long-term outcome after kyphoplasty of painful osteoporotic vertebral fractures. Spine 2008 33 1284–1290. (https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181714a84)
- 109↑
Togawa D, Bauer TW, Lieberman IH, & Takikawa S. Histologic evaluation of human vertebral bodies after vertebral augmentation with polymethyl methacrylate. Spine 2003 28 1521–1527. (https://doi.org/10.1097/01.BRS.0000076825.12630.3C)
- 110↑
Verlaan JJ, Oner FC, Slootweg PJ, Verbout AJ, & Dhert WJ. Histologic changes after vertebroplasty. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery 2004 86 1230–1238. (https://doi.org/10.2106/00004623-200406000-00016)
- 111↑
Libicher M, Hillmeier J, Liegibel U, Sommer U, Pyerin W, Vetter M, Meinzer HP, Grafe I, Meeder P, Nöldge G, et al.Osseous integration of calcium phosphate in osteoporotic vertebral fractures after kyphoplasty initial results from a clinical and experimental pilot study. Osteoporosis International 2006 17 1208–1215. (https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-006-0128-8)
- 112↑
Schützenberger S, Schwarz SM, Greiner L, Holub O, Grabner S, Huf W, Sailler A, & Fialka C. Is vertebral body stenting in combination with CaP cement superior to kyphoplasty? European Spine Journal 2018 27 2602–2608. (https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-018-5717-7)
- 113↑
Klein R, Tetzlaff R, Weiss C, Schäfer MK, Tanner M, Wiedenhöfer B, Grafe I, Meeder PJ, Noeldge G, Nawroth PP, et al.Osteointegration and resorption of intravertebral and extravertebral calcium phosphate cement. Clinical Spine Surgery 2017 30 E291–E296. (https://doi.org/10.1097/BSD.0b013e3182aab2df)
- 114↑
Crawford RJ, & Askin GN. Fixation of thoracolumbar fractures with the Dick fixator the influence of transpedicular bone grafting. European Spine Journal 1994 3 45–51. (https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02428316)
- 115↑
Van Herck B, Leirs G, & Van Loon J. Transpedicular bone grafting as a supplement to posterior pedicle screw instrumentation in thoracolumbar burst fractures. Acta Orthopaedica Belgica 2009 75 815–821.
- 116↑
Alanay A, Acaroglu E, Yazici M, Oznur A, & Surat A. Short-segment pedicle instrumentation of thoracolumbar burst fractures does transpedicular intracorporeal grafting prevent early failure? Spine 2001 26 213–217. (https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-200101150-00017)
- 117↑
Knop C, Fabian HF, Bastian L, & Blauth M. Late results of thoracolumbar fractures after posterior instrumentation and transpedicular bone grafting. Spine 2001 26 88–99. (https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-200101010-00016)
- 118↑
Braunstein V, Sprecher CM, Gisep A, Benneker L, Yen K, Schneider E, Heini P, & Milz S. Long-term reaction to bone cement in osteoporotic bone new bone formation in vertebral bodies after vertebroplasty. Journal of Anatomy 2008 212 697–701. (https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7580.2008.00883.x)
- 119↑
Tägil M, Johnsson R, Stromqvist B, & Aspenberg P. Incomplete incorporation of morselized and impacted autologous bone graft a histological study in 4 intracorporally grafted lumbar fractures. Acta Orthopaedica Scandinavica 1999 70 555–558. (https://doi.org/10.3109/17453679908997841)
