Many authors recommend surgery to remove retropulsed bone fragments from the canal in burst fractures to 'decompress' the spinal canal. We believe, however, that neurological damage occurs at the moment of injury when the anatomy is most distorted, and is not due to impingement in the resting positions observed afterwards. We studied 20 consecutive patients admitted to our spinal injuries unit over a two-year period with a T12 or L1 burst fracture. There was no correlation between bony or canal disruption and the degree of neurological compromise sustained but there was a significant correlation between the energy of the injury (as gauged by the Injury Severity Score) and the neurological status (p < 0.001). This suggests that neurological injury occurs at the time of trauma rather than being a result of pressure from fragments in the canal afterwards and questions the need to operate simply to remove these fragments.

In 139 patients with burst fractures of the thoracic, thoracolumbar or lumbar spine, the least sagittal diameter of the spinal canal at the level of injury was measured by computerised tomography. By multiple logistic regression we investigated the joint correlation of the level of the burst fracture and the percentage of spinal canal stenosis with the probability of an associated neurological deficit. There was a very significant correlation between neurological deficit and the percentage of spinal canal stenosis; the higher the level of injury the greater was the probability. The severity of neurological deficit could not be predicted.

The purpose of this study was to determine whether patients with a burst fracture of the thoracolumbar spine treated by short segment pedicle screw fixation fared better clinically and radiologically if the affected segment was fused at the same time. A total of 50 patients were enrolled in a prospective study and assigned to one of two groups. After the exclusion of three patients, there were 23 patients in the fusion group and 24 in the non-fusion group. Follow-up was at a mean of 23.9 months (18 to 30). Functional outcome was evaluated using the Greenough Low Back Outcome Score. Neurological function was graded using the American Spinal Injury Association Impairment Scale. Radiological outcome was assessed on the basis of the angle of kyphosis.

Peri-operative blood transfusion requirements and duration of surgery were significantly higher in the fusion group (p = 0.029 and p < 0.001, respectively). There were no clinical or radiological differences in outcome between the groups (all outcomes p > 0.05). The results of this study suggest that adjunctive fusion is unnecessary when managing patients with a burst fracture of the thoracolumbar spine with short segment pedicle screw fixation.

The October 2012 Spine Roundup. 360. looks at: a Japanese questionnaire at work in Iran; curve progression in degenerative lumbar scoliosis; the cause of foot drop; the issue of avoiding the spinal cord at scoliosis surgery; ballistic injuries to the cervical spine; minimally invasive oblique lumbar interbody fusion; readmission rates after spinal surgery; clinical complications and the severely injured cervical spine; and stabilising the thoracolumbar burst fracture

Surgical decompression of the spinal canal is presently accepted worldwide as the method of treatment for thoracolumbar burst fractures with neurological deficit in the belief that neurological recovery may be produced or enhanced. Our clinical and laboratory experience, however, indicates that the paralysis occurs at the moment of injury and is not related to the position of the fragments of the fracture on subsequent imaging. Since the preoperative geometry of the fracture may be of no relevance, our hypothesis, backed by more than two decades of operative experience, is that alteration of the canal by ‘surgical clearance’ does not affect the neurological outcome. We have reviewed the existing world literature in an attempt to find evidence-based justification for the variety of surgical procedures used in the management of these fractures. We retrieved 275 publications on the management of burst fractures of which 60 met minimal inclusion criteria and were analysed more closely. Only three papers were prospective studies; the remainder were retrospective descriptive analyses. None of the 60 articles included control groups. The design of nine studies was sufficiently similar to allow pooling of their results, which failed to establish a significant advantage of surgical over non-surgical treatment as regards neurological improvement. Significant complications were reported in 75% of papers, including neurological deterioration. Surgical treatment for burst fracture in the belief that neurological improvement can be achieved is not justified, although surgery may still occasionally be indicated for structural reasons. This information should not be withheld from the patients

Aims

The authors present the results of a cohort study of 60 adult patients presenting sequentially over a period of 15 years from 1997 to 2012 to our hospital for treatment of thoracic and/or lumbar vertebral burst fractures, but without neurological deficit.

The April 2015 Spine Roundup360 looks at: Hyperostotic spine in injury; App based back pain control; Interspinous process devices should be avoided in claudication; Robot assisted pedicle screws: fad or advance?; Vancomycin antibiotic power in spinal surgery; What to do with that burst fracture?; Increasing complexity of spinal fractures in major trauma pathways; Vitamin D and spinal fractures

The August 2014 Spine Roundup³⁶⁰ looks at: rhBMP complicates cervical spine surgery; posterior longitudinal ligament revisited; thoracolumbar posterior instrumentation without fusion in burst fractures; risk modelling for VTE events in spinal surgery; the consequences of dural tears in microdiscectomy; trends in revision spinal surgery; radiofrequency denervation likely effective in facet joint pain and hooks optimally biomechanically transition posterior instrumentation.

The June 2013 Spine Roundup³⁶⁰ looks at: the benefit of MRI in the follow-up of lumbar disc prolapse; gunshot injury to the spinal cord; the link between depression and back pain; floating dural sack sign; short segment fixation at ten years; whether early return to play is safer than previously thought; infection in diabetic spinal patients; and dynesis.

The purpose of this study was to evaluate and compare the effect of short segment pedicle screw instrumentation and an intermediate screw (SSPI+IS) on the radiological outcome of type A thoracolumbar fractures, as judged by the load-sharing classification, percentage canal area reduction and remodelling.

We retrospectively evaluated 39 patients who had undergone hyperlordotic SSPI+IS for an AO-Magerl Type-A thoracolumbar fracture. Their mean age was 35.1 (16 to 60) and the mean follow-up was 22.9 months (12 to 36). There were 26 men and 13 women in the study group. In total, 18 patients had a load-sharing classification score of seven and 21 a score of six. All radiographs and CT scans were evaluated for sagittal index, anterior body height compression (%ABC), spinal canal area and encroachment. There were no significant differences between the low and high score groups with respect to age, duration of follow-up, pre-operative sagittal index or pre-operative anterior body height compression (p = 0.217, 0.104, 0.104, and 0.109 respectively). The mean pre-operative sagittal index was 19.6° (12° to 28°) which was corrected to -1.8° (-5° to 3°) post-operatively and 2.4° (0° to 8°) at final follow-up (p = 0.835 for sagittal deformity). No patient needed revision for loss of correction or failure of instrumentation.

Hyperlordotic reduction and short segment pedicle screw instrumentation and an intermediate screw is a safe and effective method of treating burst fractures of the thoracolumbar spine. It gives excellent radiological results with a very low rate of failure regardless of whether the fractures have a high or low load-sharing classification score.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B:541–7.

It has been proposed that intervertebral disc degeneration might be caused by low-grade infection. The purpose of the present study was to assess the incidence of herpes viruses in intervertebral disc specimens from patients with lumbar disc herniation. A polymerase chain reaction based assay was applied to screen for the DNA of eight different herpes viruses in 16 patients and two controls. DNA of at least one herpes virus was detected in 13 specimens (81.25%). Herpes Simplex Virus type-1 (HSV-1) was the most frequently detected virus (56.25%), followed by Cytomegalovirus (CMV) (37.5%). In two patients, co-infection by both HSV-1 and CMV was detected. All samples, including the control specimens, were negative for Herpes Simplex Virus type-2, Varicella Zoster Virus, Epstein Barr Virus, Human Herpes Viruses 6, 7 and 8. The absence of an acute infection was confirmed both at the serological and mRNA level.

To our knowledge this is the first unequivocal evidence of the presence of herpes virus DNA in intervertebral disc specimens of patients with lumbar disc herniation suggesting the potential role of herpes viruses as a contributing factor to the pathogenesis of degenerative disc disease.

Impacted bone allograft is often used in revision joint replacement. Hydroxyapatite granules have been suggested as a substitute or to enhance morcellised bone allograft. We hypothesised that adding osteogenic protein-1 to a composite of bone allograft and non-resorbable hydroxyapatite granules (ProOsteon) would improve the incorporation of bone and implant fixation. We also compared the response to using ProOsteon alone against bone allograft used in isolation. We implanted two non-weight-bearing hydroxyapatite-coated implants into each proximal humerus of six dogs, with each implant surrounded by a concentric 3 mm gap. These gaps were randomly allocated to four different procedures in each dog: 1) bone allograft used on its own; 2) ProOsteon used on its own; 3) allograft and ProOsteon used together; or 4) allograft and ProOsteon with the addition of osteogenic protein-1.

After three weeks osteogenic protein-1 increased bone formation and the energy absorption of implants grafted with allograft and ProOsteon. A composite of allograft, ProOsteon and osteogenic protein-1 was comparable, but not superior to, allograft used on its own.

ProOsteon alone cannot be recommended as a substitute for allograft around non-cemented implants, but should be used to extend the volume of the graft, preferably with the addition of a growth factor.