Category: Spine

Posted on

The evolution of thoracolumbar injury classification systems

The Spine Journal 9, Issue 9, September 2009, Pages 780-788doi:10.1016/j.spinee.2009.04.003

An ideal classification system for thoracolumbar (TL) spine fractures should facilitate communication between treating physicians and guide treatment by means of outlining the natural history of injuries. The classification scheme should also be comprehensive, intuitive, and simple to implement. At the present time, no classification system fully meets these criteria. In this review, the authors attempt to describe the evolution of TL fracture classification systems from their inception to the present day.

The article reviews the salient classification systems that have addressed TL injuries since Boehler’s first attempt in 1929. This progression culminates in the Thoracolumbar Injury Severity Score/Thoracolumbar Injury Classification and Severity Score (TLISS/TLICS), a system which incorporates features from earlier scales and represents the most comprehensive grading scale to date.

Each successive system played an important role in advancing contemporary understanding of TL injuries. Most classifications were, however, based on a single individual’s, or a comparatively small group’s, retrospective review of a case series. In most instances, these grading systems were never validated or modified by their original developers, a shortcoming that prevented their continued evolution. Despite the many advantages of the TLISS/TLICS system, more work in terms of refining the classification and defining its validity remains to be performed.

The classification of TL injuries has evolved significantly over the course of the last 75 years. Most of these schemes were limited by their complexity, relevance, and/or poor reliability. The TLISS classification system represents the most recent evolution as it combines several important factors capable of guiding the management of TL injuries. Nonetheless, more research regarding this rating scale remains to be performed.

Posted on

Management of disc herniations with bi-radicular symptoms via combined lateral and interlaminar approach

Neurosurg Review

Large lumbosacral disc herniations causing bi-radicular symptoms are very rare clinical entities and may present a surgical challenge. This study was undertaken to evaluate the effectiveness of the simply modified combined lateral and interlaminar approach for the treatment of these unique disc herniations. Between 2000 and 2005, 18 patients with bi-radicular symptoms secondary to large disc herniations of the lumbar spine underwent surgery. There were 13 men and five women, ranging in age between 25 and 64 years (mean 54.3 years). In this three-step operation, the osseous areas that are not essential for the facet joint were removed and both upper and lower nerve roots were decompressed. There were no intraoperative or postoperative complications, except transient dysesthesia in one (5.5%) patient. The mean follow-up period was 62.6 months (range 36–96 months). At the latest follow-up examination, outcomes using the Macnab classification were excellent in 13 patients (72.2 %), good in four (22.2%) and fair in one (5.5%). Recurrent disc herniations and/or instability, either symptomatic or radiographic, have not occurred as a result of the procedure during the follow-up period. The combined approach described here is a safe and effective procedure in the surgical treatment of this subtype of disc herniations with bi-radicular involvement. It permits optimum decompression of both nerve roots, avoiding the risk of secondary spinal instability.

Posted on

A Randomized Trial of Vertebroplasty for Osteoporotic Spinal Fractures

NEJM (361): 569-579. Aug 6, 2009

Vertebroplasty is commonly used to treat painful, osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures.

Methods In this multicenter trial, we randomly assigned 131 patients who had one to three painful osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures to undergo either vertebroplasty or a simulated procedure without cement (control group). The primary outcomes were scores on the modified Roland–Morris Disability Questionnaire (RDQ) (on a scale of 0 to 23, with higher scores indicating greater disability) and patients’ ratings of average pain intensity during the preceding 24 hours at 1 month (on a scale of 0 to 10, with higher scores indicating more severe pain). Patients were allowed to cross over to the other study group after 1 month.

Results All patients underwent the assigned intervention (68 vertebroplasties and 63 simulated procedures). The baseline characteristics were similar in the two groups. At 1 month, there was no significant difference between the vertebroplasty group and the control group in either the RDQ score (difference, 0.7; 95% confidence interval [CI], –1.3 to 2.8; P=0.49) or the pain rating (difference, 0.7; 95% CI, –0.3 to 1.7; P=0.19). Both groups had immediate improvement in disability and pain scores after the intervention. Although the two groups did not differ significantly on any secondary outcome measure at 1 month, there was a trend toward a higher rate of clinically meaningful improvement in pain (a 30% decrease from baseline) in the vertebroplasty group (64% vs. 48%, P=0.06). At 3 months, there was a higher crossover rate in the control group than in the vertebroplasty group (43% vs. 12%, P<0.001). There was one serious adverse event in each group.

Conclusions Improvements in pain and pain-related disability associated with osteoporotic compression fractures in patients treated with vertebroplasty were similar to the improvements in a control group. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00068822 [ClinicalTrials.gov] .)
Proudly powered by WordPress