Download PDF
Indian Journal of Neurotrauma 2004; 01(02): 49-54
DOI: 10.1016/S0973-0508(04)80010-8
Original Article

Anterior Thoracolumbar Fixation for Management of Thoracolumbar Spine Injury

PK Sahoo Col
,
P Singh Col
,
HS Bhatoe Lt Col
,
TVSP Murthy Lt Col
1   Department of Neurosurgery, Army Hospital (R & R), Delhi Cantt-110 010
,
K Sandhu Lt Col
1   Department of Neurosurgery, Army Hospital (R & R), Delhi Cantt-110 010
,
A Chaturvedi Wg Cdr
2   Department of Anaesthesiology Army Hospital (R & R), Delhi Cantt-110 010
› Author Affiliations
Subject Editor:
› Further Information
Also available at
  PDF Download Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

A retrospective analysis was carried for sixty patients with thoracolumbar spine injury operated during Jan 2001 to Dec 2003. Fifty (84%) were male and ten were female patients. Thirty six (60%) sustained injury by vehicular accident and 24 (40%) due to fall, ejection and obstacle crossing. There were four patients with associated head injury, seven with extremity, four with chest and two patients with abdominal injury. All patients presented with features of spinal cord/cauda equina injury and evaluated with Frankel’s neurological grade at admission. Eight patients presented with grade ‘A’, two grade ‘B’, thirty six grade ‘C’, fourteen grade ‘D’ neurological deficit as per Frankel’s classification. Plain radiography, Computerised Tomography (CT) scan, and Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) of thoracolumbar spine revealed fracture L1 in 32, D12 in 14, D11 in 07, L2 in 07. Corpectomy + bone grafting in 06; corpectomy + bone grafting + plating in 07; corpectomy, cage placement in 07; corpectomy, cage placement + plating in 40, were carried out. Outcome was evaluated at two months, six months and one year in Frankel’s grade. The outcome was Frankel’s ‘A’ 08, Frankel’s ‘B’ 02, Frankel’s ‘D’ 23 and Frankel’s ‘E’ 27. Ten patients did not show any recovery. There was wound infection in two, mal-alignment of cage in two and lateral placement screws were found in two patients. Revision surgery was not carried out, as the patients were stable. The implants were in position during post-operative follow up. The study revealed, there was good reduction, decompression and stabilisation in all patients. The patients were mobilised early with external support after spinal stabilisation. Patients with incomplete spinal cord injury showed excellent to good recovery and patients with initial Frankel’s ‘A’ & ‘B’ did not show any recovery.

Keywords

Anterior Thoracolumbar Z-Plate fixation - Corpectomy Thoracolumbar Spine injury - Titanium Cage Placement


Publication History

Publication Date:
05 April 2017 (online)

© 2004. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Private Ltd.

 

  • References

  • 1 Weinstein JN, Collato P, Lehmann TR. Thoracolumbar “burst” fractures treated conservatively A long-term follow up. Spine 13 1998; 33-38
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 2 Bradford DS, McBride GG. Surgical management of thoracolumbar, spine fractures with incomplete neurologic deficits. Clinical Orthopaedics 218 1987; 102-116
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 3 Kostuik JP. Anterior fixation for fractures of the thoracic and lumbar spine with or without neurologic involvement. Clin Orthop 189 1984; 103-115
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 4 McAfee PC, Bohlman HH, Yuan HA. Anterior decompression of traumatic thoracolumbar fractures with incomplete neurological deficit using a retroperitoneal approach. J Bone Joint Surg (Am) 67 1985; 89-104
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 5 Roberson JR, Whitesides TE. Surgical reconstruction of late post-traumatic thoracolumbar kyphosis. Spine 10 1985; 307-312
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 6 Zdeblick TA, Warden KE, Zou D. et al Anterior spinal fixators. Spine 18 1993; 513-517
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 7 Abumi K, Panjabi MM, Duranceau J. Biomenchanical evaluation of spinal fixation devices; III, Stability provided by six fixation devices and interbody graft. Spine 14 1989; 1249-1255
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 8 Kuslich SD, Ulstrom CL, Griffith SL. et al The Bagby and Kuslich method of lumbar interbody fusion. History, techniques and 2-year follo-up results of a United States prospective, multicenter trial. Spine 23 1998; 1267-1279
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 9 Hoshijima K, Nightingale RW, Yu JR. et al Management options in thoracolumbar burst fractures. Surg Neurol 49 1998; 619-626
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 10 Jost B, Cripton PA, Lund T. et al Compressive strength of interbody cages in the lumbar spine: the effect of cage shape, posterior instrumentation and bone density. Eur Spine J 07 1998; 132-141
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 11 Lund T, Oxland TR, Jost B. Interbody cage stabilisation in the lumbar spine: biomechanical evaluation of cage design, posterior instrumentation and bone density. J Bone Joint Surg (Br) 80 1998; 351-359
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 12 Nibu K, Panjabi MM, Oxland T. et al Multidirectional stabilising potential of BAK interbody spinal fusion system for anterior surgery. J Spinal Disord 10 1997; 357-362
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 13 Rapoff AJ, Ghanayem AJ, Zdeblick TA. Biomechanical comparison of posterior lumbar interbody fusion cages. Spine 22 1997; 2375-2379
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 14 McAfee PC. Complications of anterior approaches to the thoracolumbar spine. Emphasis on Kaneda instrumentation. Clin Orthop 306 1994; 110-119
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar