The Halofixator for the Treatment of Unstable Fractures of the Upper Cervical Spine - Our Own Experience and Narrative Review. / Der Halofixateur zur Therapie von instabilen Frakturen der oberen Halswirbelsäule ­ eigene Erfahrungen und narratives Review.

INTRODUCTION: In the treatment of upper cervical spine injuries, the semiconservative procedure of the halofixator is now of only secondary importance. Older studies from the 2000 s showed unsatisfactory rates of consolidation as well as high rates of complications. However, due to current data on therapy effectiveness, the literature is inconsistent. The aim of this work is to compare our own experiences and results of treatment with the current literature and to help to clarify the role of the halofixator. MATERIAL AND METHODS: In a monocentric retrospective cohort study, patients with unstable injuries of the axial cervical spine who were to be treated in the halofixator were investigated. Individual variables (sex, age, concomitant diseases, Charlson Comorbidity Index) and treatment characteristics (duration of treatment, consolidation status, complications) were recorded using the electronic medical record. Injuries were classified based on CT data at the time of the accident and at the end of treatment, using common classification systems, and assessed with respect to the rate of consolidation. Possible factors influencing bony consolidation as well as complications were statistically analysed. RESULTS: A total of 54 patients met the inclusion criteria. The median duration of treatment was 83 days. The most common injuries were isolated atlas fracture type III (7; 13%) and isolated dens fracture type III (24; 44%). Bony consolidation was demonstrated in 34 cases (63%) and tight pseudarthrosis in 13 cases (24%). Secondary surgical stabilisation was performed in 6 cases (11%). Isolated type III atlas fractures and type III dens fractures had very high consolidation rates of 86% and 92%, respectively. In the subgroups of patients older than 65 years or with a CCI ≥ 4, unstable pseudarthroses were found more frequently. Complications included pin infection (6%), pin dislocation (9%), and pressure ulceration from the halo vest (6%). Cardiopulmonary complications did not occur. No patient died. DISCUSSION: Good rates of bony consolidation were seen for atlas fractures type III as well as dens fractures type III, which correlate with data in the literature. Dens fractures type II (isolated and combined) and atlas fractures type III in combination with dens fractures showed a worse radiological outcome, which is also unsatisfactory compared to the literature. The rates for procedure-specific complications were relatively low. In particular, work from recent years has demonstrated very good rates for bony consolidation and low complication rates for the treatment of atlas and/or dens fractures with the halofixator, which are confirmed by our results. In contrast, however, a significantly higher cardiac/respiratory complication rate has been reported than occurred in our own patient population.

Muscle activity and rehabilitation in spinal stenosis (MARSS) after conservative therapy and surgical decompression with or without fusion: Protocol for a partially randomized patient preference trial on rehabilitation timing.

Background: Patients affected by lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) suffer from a multifactorial degeneration of the lumbar spine resulting in narrowing of the neuroforamina and spinal canal, leading to various functional limitations. It remains unclear whether LSS patients after surgery would benefit from early post-operative rehabilitation, or if a delayed rehabilitation would be more advantageous. The purpose of this partially randomized patient preference trial is to evaluate the impact of post-operative rehabilitation timing as well as surgical intervention type on psychometric properties and functional outcomes in patients with LSS. Methods: Data for this patient preference trial are collected before and after surgical (decompression only or decompression and fusion) and rehabilitative interventions as well as six, 12 and 24 months after completing rehabilitation. The study participants are patients diagnosed with LSS who are at least 18 years old. After a medical check-up, participants will complete patient-reported outcome measures (PAREMO-20, SIBAR, FREM-8, SF-12, SFI, ODI) and different functional assessments (functional reach test, loaded reach test, handgrip strength, standing balance control, 6-min walk test). Ethics and dissemination: The results of this study will be published through peer-reviewed publications and scientific contributions at national and international conferences. This research has been approved by the Institutional Review Board of Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg (reference number: 2022-128).

Perioperative outcome of minimally invasive stabilisation of bilateral fragility fractures of the sacrum: a comparative study of bisegmental transsacral stabilisation versus spinopelvic fixation.

PURPOSE: Pelvic fragility fractures have steadily risen over the past decades. The primary treatment goal is the fastest possible mobilisation. If conservative therapy fails, surgical fixation is a promising approach. This study compares the outcome of bisegmental transsacral stabilisation (BTS) and spinopelvic fixation (SP) as minimally invasive techniques for bilateral fragility fractures of the sacrum (BFFS). METHODS: We performed a prospective, non-randomised, case-controlled study. Patients were included if they remained bedridden due to pain despite conservative treatment. Group assignment depended on sacral anatomy and fracture type. The outcome was estimated by blood loss calculation, cut-seam time, fluoroscopy time, complications, duration of stay at the intensive/intermediate care unit (ICU/IMC), and total inpatient stay. The mobility level at discharge was recorded. RESULTS: Seventy-three patients were included (SP: 49, BTS: 24). There was no difference in blood loss (BTS: 461 ± 628 mL, SP: 509 ± 354 mL). BTS showed a significantly lower cut-seam time (72 ± 23 min) than SP (94 ± 27 min). Fluoroscopy time did not differ (BTS: 111 ± 61 s vs. 103 ± 45 s). Thirteen percent of BTS and 16% of SP patients required ICU/IMC stay (BTS: 0.6 ± 1.8 days, SP: 0.5 ± 1.5 days) during inpatient stay (BTS: 9 ± 4 days, SP: 8 ± 3 days). Fourteen patients suffered from urinary tract infections (BTS: 8%; SP: 25%). In-patient mortality was low (BTS: 4.2%, SP: 4.1%). At discharge, the BTS group was almost back to the initial mobility level. In SP patients, mobility was significantly lower than before complaints (p = 0.004). CONCLUSION: Both methods allow early mobilization of BFFS patients. Blood loss can be kept low. Hence, transfusion requirement is correspondingly low. The IMC/ICU and the total inpatient stay are lower than reported in the literature. Both BTS and SP can be recommended as safe and low-complication methods for use in BFFS patients. BTS is superior to SP with respect to surgery duration and level of mobility at discharge.

Treatment of Injuries to the Subaxial Cervical Spine: Recommendations of the Spine Section of the German Society for Orthopaedics and Trauma (DGOU).

STUDY DESIGN: Expert consensus. OBJECTIVES: To establish treatment recommendations for subaxial cervical spine injuries based on current literature and the knowledge of the Spine Section of the German Society for Orthopaedics and Trauma. METHODS: This recommendation summarizes the knowledge of the Spine Section of the German Society for Orthopaedics and Trauma. RESULTS: Therapeutic goals are a stable, painless cervical spine and protection against secondary neurologic damage while retaining maximum possible motion and spinal profile. The AOSpine classification for subaxial cervical injuries is recommended. The Canadian C-Spine Rule is recommended to decide on the need for imaging. Computed tomography is the favoured modality. Conventional x-ray is preserved for cases lacking a "dangerous mechanism of injury." Magnetic resonance imaging is recommended in case of unexplained neurologic deficit, prior to closed reduction and to exclude disco-ligamentous injuries. Computed tomography angiography is recommended in high-grade facet joint injuries or in the presence of vertebra-basilar symptoms. A0-, A1- and A2-injuries are treated conservatively, but have to be monitored for progressive kyphosis. A3 injuries are operated in the majority of cases. A4- and B- and C-type injuries are treated surgically. Most injuries can be treated with anterior plate stabilization and interbody support; A4 fractures need vertebral body replacement. In certain cases, additive or pure posterior instrumentation is needed. Usually, lateral mass screws suffice. A navigation system is advised for pedicle screws from C3 to C6. CONCLUSIONS: These recommendations provide a framework for the treatment of subaxial cervical spine Injuries. They give advice about diagnostic measures and the therapeutic strategy.

[Subaxial Cervical Spine Injuries: Treatment Recommendations of the German Orthopedic and Trauma Society]. / Therapieempfehlungen zur Versorgung von Verletzungen der subaxialen Halswirbelsäule.

In a consensus process during four sessions in 2016, the working group "lower cervical spine" of the German Society for Orthopedic and Trauma Surgery (DGOU), formulated "Therapeutic Recommendations for the Lower Cervical Spine", taking into consideration the current literature. Therapeutic goals are a permanently stable, painless cervical spine and the protection against secondary neurologic damage while retaining the greatest possible amount of motion and spinal profile. Due to its ease of use and its proven good reliability, the AOSpine classification for subaxial cervical injuries should be used. The Canadian C-Spine Rule is recommended as a clinical decision rule whether to perform imaging or not. If a structural or unstable injury is suspected by patient history or clinical findings, a spiral CT scan of the cervical spine is the favoured diagnostic modality. Conventional X-ray is reserved for patients in whom there is no "dangerous mechanism of injury". MR imaging is recommended in case of unexplained neurologic deficit, prior to closed reduction and open posterior surgery and to exclude disco-ligamentous injuries. Urgency of MR imaging depends on the specific findings. CT angiography is recommended in higher-grade facet joint injuries or in the presence of vertebra-basilar symptoms. Flexion-extension imaging is recommended only as a physician-guided dynamic fluoroscopy, when an unstable lesion is still suspected. The therapeutic strategy is mainly dependent on morphologic criteria, which are described using the AOSpine classification. A0-injuries are treated conservatively. A1- and A2-injuries are treated conservatively in the majority of cases, and in single cases a gross kyphotic deformity might indicate surgical stabilisation. A3-injuries do indicate a surgical therapy in the majority of cases, but certain cases might be treated conservatively. A4-fractures as well as B- and C-type injuries are to be treated surgically. Most injuries can be treated by anterior plate stabilisation with interbody support; when a complete burst fracture is present, corpectomy and vertebral body replacement is necessary. In certain cases, an additive posterior or pure posterior instrumentation might be possible or even mandatory. In most of these cases, lateral mass screws are sufficient; when pedicle screws are applied in C3 to C6, a 3D-navigation system is recommended. Injuries in an ankylosing spine (M3-modifier) should be treated preferably from posterior with long-segment instrumentation.