Surgical treatment of traumatic fractures of the thoracic and lumbar spine: A systematic review.

Introduction: The treatment of traumatic thoracic and lumbar spine fractures remains controversial. To date no consensus exists on the correct choice of surgical approach and technique. Research question: to provide a comprehensive up-to-date overview of the available different surgical methods and their quantified outcomes. Methods: PubMed and EMBASE were searched between 2001 and 2020 using the term 'spinal fractures'. Inclusion criteria were: adults, ≥10 cases, ≥12 months follow-up, thoracic or lumbar fractures, and surgery <3 weeks of trauma. Studies were categorized per surgical technique: Posterior open (PO), posterior percutaneous (PP), stand-alone vertebral body augmentation (SA), anterior scopic (AS), anterior open (AO), posterior percutaneous and anterior open (PPAO), posterior percutaneous and anterior scopic (PPAS), posterior open and anterior open (POAO) and posterior open and anterior scopic (POAS). The PO group was used as a reference group. Results: After duplicate removal 6042 articles were identified. A total of 102 articles were Included, in which 137 separate surgical technique cohorts were described: PO (n = 75), PP, (n = 39), SA (n = 12), AO (n = 5), PPAO (n = 1), PPAS (n = 1), POAO (n = 2) and POAS (n = 2). Discussion and conclusion: For type A3/A4 burst fractures, without severe neurological deficit, posterior percutaneous (PP) technique seems the safest and most feasible option in the past two decades. If needed, PP can be combined with anterior augmentation to prevent secondary kyphosis. Furthermore, posterior open (PO) technique is feasible in almost all types of fractures. Also, this technique can provide for an additional posterior decompression or fusion. Overall, no neurologic deterioration was reported following surgical intervention.

Low-Threshold-For-Surgery Versus Primarily-Conservative Treatment for Odontoid Fractures in the Elderly: Evaluating Practice Variation in The Netherlands.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. OBJECTIVES: Odontoid fractures are the most common cervical spine fractures in the elderly. The optimal treatment remains controversial. The aim of this study was to compare results of a low-threshold-for-surgery strategy (surgery for dislocated fractures in relatively healthy patients) to a primarily-conservative strategy (for all patients). METHODS: Patient records from 5 medical centers were reviewed for patients who met the selection criteria (e.g. age ≥55 years, type II/III odontoid fractures). Demographics, fracture types/characteristics, fracture union/stability, clinical outcome and mortality were compared. The influence of age on outcome was studied (≥55-80 vs ≥80 years). RESULTS: A total of 173 patients were included: 120 treated with low-threshold-for-surgery (of which 22 primarily operated, and 23 secondarily) vs 53 treated primarily-conservative. No differences in demographics and fracture characteristics between the groups were identified. Fracture union (53% vs 43%) and fracture stability (90% vs 85%) at last follow-up did not differ between groups. The majority of patients (56%) achieved clinical improvement compared to baseline. Analysis of differences in clinical outcome between groups was infeasible due to data limitations. In both strategies, patients ≥80 years achieved worse union (64% vs 30%), worse stability (97% vs 77%), and - as to be expected - increased mortality <104 weeks (2% vs 22%). CONCLUSIONS: Union and stability rates did not differ between the treatment strategies. Advanced age (≥80 years) negatively influenced both radiological outcome and mortality. No cases of secondary neurological deficits were identified, suggesting that concerns for the consequences of under-treatment may be unjustified.

The Diagnostic Process of Spinal Post-traumatic Deformity: An Expert Survey of 7 Cases, Consensus on Clinical Relevance Does Exist.

STUDY DESIGN: Survey of cases. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the opinion of experts in the diagnostic process of clinically relevant Spinal Post-traumatic Deformity (SPTD). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: SPTD is a potential complication of spine trauma that can cause decreased function and quality of life impairment. The question of when SPTD becomes clinically relevant is yet to be resolved. METHODS: The survey of 7 cases was sent to 31 experts. The case presentation was medical history, diagnostic assessment, evaluation of diagnostic assessment, diagnosis, and treatment options. Means, ranges, percentages of participants, and descriptive statistics were calculated. RESULTS: Seventeen spinal surgeons reviewed the presented cases. The items' fracture type and complaints were rated by the participants as more important, but no agreement existed on the items of medical history. In patients with possible SPTD in the cervical spine (C) area, participants requested a conventional radiograph (CR) (76%-83%), a flexion/extension CR (61%-71%), a computed tomography (CT)-scan (76%-89%), and a magnetic resonance (MR)-scan (89%-94%). In thoracolumbar spine (ThL) cases, full spine CR (89%-100%), CT scan (72%-94%), and MR scan (65%-94%) were requested most often. There was a consensus on 5 out of 7 cases with clinically relevant SPTD (82%-100%). When consensus existed on the diagnosis of SPTD, there was a consensus on the case being compensated or decompensated and being symptomatic or asymptomatic. CONCLUSIONS: There was strong agreement in 5 out of 7 cases on the presence of the diagnosis of clinically relevant SPTD. Among spine experts, there is a strong consensus to use CT scan and MR scan, a cervical CR for C-cases, and a full spine CR for ThL-cases. The lack of agreement on items of the medical history suggests that a Delphi study can help us reach a consensus on the essential items of clinically relevant SPTD. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level V.

Validation of the Hierarchical Nature of the AO Spine Sacral Classification and the Development of the Sacral AO Spine Injury Score.

STUDY DESIGN: Global cross-sectional survey. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to validate the hierarchical nature of the AO Spine Sacral Classification System and develop an injury scoring system. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Although substantial interobserver and intraobserver reliability of the AO Spine Sacral Classification System has been established, the hierarchical nature of the classification has yet to be validated. METHODS: Respondents numerically graded each variable within the classification system for severity. Based on the results, a Sacral AO Spine Injury Score (AOSIS) was developed. RESULTS: A total of 142 responses were received. The classification exhibited a hierarchical Injury Severity Score (ISS) progression (A1: 8 to C3: 95) with few exceptions. Subtypes B1 and B2 fractures showed no significant difference in ISS (B1 43.9 vs. B2 43.4, P =0.362). In addition, the transitions A3→B1 and B3→C0 represent significant decreases in ISS (A3 66.3 vs. B1 43.9, P <0.001; B3 64.2 vs. C0 46.4, P <0.001). Accordingly, A1 injury was assigned a score of 0. A2 and A3 received scores of 1 and 3 points, respectively. Posterior pelvic injuries B1 and B2 both received a score of 2. B3 received a score of 3 points. C0, C1, C2, and C3 received scores of 2, 3, 5, and 6 points, respectively. The scores assigned to neurological modifiers N0, N1, N2, N3, and NX were 0, 1, 2, 4, and 3, respectively. Case-specific modifiers M1, M2, M3, and M4 received scores of 0, 0, 1, and 2 points, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study validate the hierarchical nature of the AO Spine Sacral Classification System. The Sacral AOSIS sets the foundation for further studies to develop a universally accepted treatment algorithm for the treatment of complex sacral injuries. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV-Diagnostic.

Time to Surgical Treatment for Metastatic Spinal Disease: Identification of Delay Intervals.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. OBJECTIVES: Minimizing delays in referral, diagnosis and treatment of patients with symptomatic spinal metastases is important for optimal treatment outcomes. The primary objective of this study was to investigate several forms of delay from the onset of symptoms until surgical treatment of spinal metastases for patients with and without a known preexisting known malignancy. METHODS: All patients receiving surgical treatment for spinal metastases in a single tertiary spine center were identified. Referral patterns were reconstructed and the total delay was divided into 4 categories: patient delay (onset of symptoms until medical consultation), diagnostic delay (medical consultation until diagnosis), referral delay (diagnosis until referral to spine surgeon) and treatment delay (referral spine to surgeon until treatment). These intervals were compared between patients with and without a known preexisting malignancy. RESULTS: The median total delay was 99 days, patient delay 19 days, diagnostic delay 21,5 days, referral delay 7 days, treatment delay 8 days and diagnosis and treatment delay combined 18,5 days. No difference in total delay was observed between patients with and without a known preexisting malignancy. Total delay was not significantly associated with patient age, sex, oncological history, tumor prognosis and spinal level of the tumor. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with symptomatic spinal metastases experience considerable delays, even after metastatic spinal disease has been diagnosed, regardless of a preexisting malignancy. By identifying and eliminating the causes of these delays, diagnosis, referral and treatment may be expedited leading to improved patient outcome.

Spinal Post-traumatic Deformity: An International Expert Survey Among AO Spine Knowledge Forum Members.

STUDY DESIGN: Survey among spine experts. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the different views and opinions of clinically relevant spinal post-traumatic deformity (SPTD). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: There is no clear definition of clinically relevant SPTD. This leads to a wide variation in characteristics used for diagnosis and treatment indications of SPTD. To understand the current concepts of SPTD a survey was conducted among spine trauma surgeons. METHODS: Members of the AO Spine Knowledge Forum Trauma participated in an online survey. The survey was divided in 4 domains: Demographics, criteria to define SPTD, risk factors, and management. The data were collected anonymously and analyzed using descriptive statistics, absolute, and relative frequencies. Consensus on dichotomous outcomes was set to 80% of agreement. RESULTS: Fifteen members with extensive experience in treatment of spinal trauma participated, representing the 5 AO Spine Regions. Back pain was the only criterion for definition of SPTD with complete agreement. Consensus (≥80%) was reached for kyphotic angulation outside normative ranges and impaired function. Eighty-seven percent and 100% agreed that a full-spine conventional radiograph was necessary in diagnosing and treating SPTD, respectively. The "missed B-type injury" was rated at most important by all but 1 participant. There was no agreement on other risk factors leading to clinically relevant SPTD. Concerning the management, all participants agreed that an asymptomatic patient should not undergo surgical treatment and that neurological deficit is an absolute surgical indication. For most of the participants the preferred surgical treatment of acute injury in all spine regions but the subaxial region is posterior fixation. CONCLUSION: Some consensus exists among leading experts in the field of spine trauma care concerning the definition, diagnosis, risk factors, and management of SPTD. This study acts as the foundation for a Delphi study among the global spine community.

Effect of surgical experience and spine subspecialty on the reliability of the AO Spine Upper Cervical Injury Classification System.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this paper was to determine the interobserver reliability and intraobserver reproducibility of the AO Spine Upper Cervical Injury Classification System based on surgeon experience (< 5 years, 5-10 years, 10-20 years, and > 20 years) and surgical subspecialty (orthopedic spine surgery, neurosurgery, and "other" surgery). METHODS: A total of 11,601 assessments of upper cervical spine injuries were evaluated based on the AO Spine Upper Cervical Injury Classification System. Reliability and reproducibility scores were obtained twice, with a 3-week time interval. Descriptive statistics were utilized to examine the percentage of accurately classified injuries, and Pearson's chi-square or Fisher's exact test was used to screen for potentially relevant differences between study participants. Kappa coefficients (κ) determined the interobserver reliability and intraobserver reproducibility. RESULTS: The intraobserver reproducibility was substantial for surgeon experience level (< 5 years: 0.74 vs 5-10 years: 0.69 vs 10-20 years: 0.69 vs > 20 years: 0.70) and surgical subspecialty (orthopedic spine: 0.71 vs neurosurgery: 0.69 vs other: 0.68). Furthermore, the interobserver reliability was substantial for all surgical experience groups on assessment 1 (< 5 years: 0.67 vs 5-10 years: 0.62 vs 10-20 years: 0.61 vs > 20 years: 0.62), and only surgeons with > 20 years of experience did not have substantial reliability on assessment 2 (< 5 years: 0.62 vs 5-10 years: 0.61 vs 10-20 years: 0.61 vs > 20 years: 0.59). Orthopedic spine surgeons and neurosurgeons had substantial intraobserver reproducibility on both assessment 1 (0.64 vs 0.63) and assessment 2 (0.62 vs 0.63), while other surgeons had moderate reliability on assessment 1 (0.43) and fair reliability on assessment 2 (0.36). CONCLUSIONS: The international reliability and reproducibility scores for the AO Spine Upper Cervical Injury Classification System demonstrated substantial intraobserver reproducibility and interobserver reliability regardless of surgical experience and spine subspecialty. These results support the global application of this classification system.

Assessment of Posterolateral Lumbar Fusion: A Systematic Review of Imaging-Based Fusion Criteria.

BACKGROUND: Noninvasive assessment of osseous fusion after spinal fusion surgery is essential for timely diagnosis of patients with symptomatic pseudarthrosis and for evaluation of the performance of spinal fusion procedures. There is, however, no consensus on the definition and assessment of successful posterolateral fusion (PLF) of the lumbar spine. This systematic review aimed to (1) summarize the criteria used for imaging-based fusion assessment after instrumented PLF and (2) evaluate their diagnostic accuracy and reliability. METHODS: First, a search of the literature was conducted in November 2018 to identify reproducible criteria for imaging-based fusion assessment after primary instrumented PLF between T10 and S1 in adult patients, and to determine their frequency of use. A second search in July 2021 was directed at primary studies on the diagnostic accuracy (with surgical exploration as the reference) and/or reliability (interobserver and intraobserver agreement) of these criteria. Article selection and data extraction were performed by at least 2 reviewers independently. The methodological quality of validation studies was assessed with the QUADAS-2 (Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2) and QAREL (Quality Appraisal of Reliability Studies). RESULTS: Of the 187 articles included from the first search, 47% used a classification system and 63% used ≥1 descriptive criterion related to osseous bridging (104 articles), absence of motion (78 articles), and/or absence of static signs of nonunion (39 articles). A great variation in terminology, cutoff values, and assessed anatomical locations was observed. While the use of computed tomography (CT) increased over time, radiographs remained predominant. The second search yielded 11 articles with considerable variation in outcomes and quality concerns. Agreement between imaging-based assessment and surgical exploration with regard to demonstration of fusion ranged between 55% and 80%, while reliability ranged from poor to excellent. CONCLUSIONS: None of the available criteria for noninvasive assessment of fusion status after instrumented PLF were demonstrated to have both sufficient accuracy and reliability. Further elaboration and validation of a well-defined systematic CT-based assessment method that allows grading of the intertransverse and interfacet fusion mass at each side of each fusion level and includes signs of nonunion is recommended. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Diagnostic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Diffuse idiopathic skeletal hyperostosis of the cervical spine causing dysphagia and airway obstruction: an updated systematic review.

BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT: Diffuse idiopathic skeletal hyperostosis (DISH) is characterized by growing ossifications of spinal entheses and tendons, which may cause trachea and esophagus compression when located anteriorly in the cervical spine. PURPOSE: Our previous systematic review on the epidemiological and clinical knowledge of dysphagia and airway obstruction caused by cervical DISH was updated, with a focus on (surgical) treatment and outcomes. STUDY DESIGN: A systematic review of the literature was performed. METHODS: Publications in Medline and EMBASE from July 2010 to June 2021 were searched. Two investigators performed data extraction and study specific quality assessment. RESULTS: A total of 138 articles (112 case reports and 26 case series) were included, describing 419 patients with dysphagia and/or airway obstruction. The mean age of the patient group was 67.3 years (range: 35-91 years), and 85.4% was male. An evident increase of published cases was observed within the last decade. Surgical treatment was chosen for 66% of patients with the anterolateral approach most commonly used. The total complication rate after surgery was 22.1%, with 12.7% occurring within 1 month after intervention. Improvement of dysphagia was observed in 95.5% of operated patients. After a mean follow-up of 3.7 years (range: 0.4-9.0 years), dysphagia recurred in 12 surgically treated patients (4%), of which five patients had osteophyte regrowth. CONCLUSIONS: The number of published cases of dysphagia in patients with DISH has doubled in the last decade compared to our previous review. Yet, randomized studies or guidelines on the treatment or prevention on recurrence are lacking. Surgical treatment is effective and has low (major) complication rates. Common trends established across the cases in our study may help improve our understanding and management of dysphagia and airway obstruction in cervical DISH.

Impact of Surgical Timing on Motor Level Lowering in Motor Complete Traumatic Spinal Cord Injury Patients.

Patients with complete traumatic spinal cord injury (tSCI) have a low potential to recover ambulation. Motor level recovery, adjacent to the level of injury, could influence functional independency. This study addresses whether surgical timing influences motor level recovery in patients with motor complete (American Spinal Injury Association [ASIA] Impairment Scale A [AIS A]) and motor incomplete (AIS B) tSCI. A retrospective cohort study was performed in the Netherlands in patients with AIS A/B tSCI (C2-L2), who consecutively underwent surgery between January 2010 and April 2020. Neurological examination was performed directly at presentation to the emergency room and at discharge from the rehabilitation facility. Motor level lowering, AIS grade, and upper and lower extremity motor score recovery were calculated for patients who underwent early (< 24 h) and late (24 h+) surgery. A total of 96 patients met the inclusion criteria. In the multi-variate analysis, late surgical decompression (24 h+) was negatively associated with ≥1 motor level lowering and ≥2 AIS grade improvement [odds ratio (OR) 0.11 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.01, 0.67], p = 0.046, and OR 0.06 [95% CI: 0.00, 047], p = 0.030. respectively). The presence of sacral sparing (AIS B) at initial examination, and cervical level of the tSCI were associated with ≥1 motor level lowering. In addition, AO Spine C-type injuries were negatively associated with any type of neurological recovery, except motor level lowering. Although sensorimotor complete injuries as well as thoracolumbar injuries negatively influence neurological recovery, early surgical decompression (< 24 h) appears independently associated with enhanced neurological recovery in patients with traumatic spinal cord injury despite level and severity of injury.

Variations in management of A3 and A4 cervical spine fractures as designated by the AO Spine Subaxial Injury Classification System.

OBJECTIVE: Optimal management of A3 and A4 cervical spine fractures, as defined by the AO Spine Subaxial Injury Classification System, remains controversial. The objectives of this study were to determine whether significant management variations exist with respect to 1) fracture location across the upper, middle, and lower subaxial cervical spine and 2) geographic region, experience, or specialty. METHODS: A survey was internationally distributed to 272 AO Spine members across six geographic regions (North America, South America, Europe, Africa, Asia, and the Middle East). Participants' management of A3 and A4 subaxial cervical fractures across cervical regions was assessed in four clinical scenarios. Key characteristics considered in the vignettes included degree of neurological deficit, pain severity, cervical spine stability, presence of comorbidities, and fitness for surgery. Respondents were also directly asked about their preferences for operative management and misalignment acceptance across the subaxial cervical spine. RESULTS: In total, 155 (57.0%) participants completed the survey. Pooled analysis demonstrated that surgeons were more likely to offer operative intervention for both A3 (p < 0.001) and A4 (p < 0.001) fractures located at the cervicothoracic junction compared with fractures at the upper or middle subaxial cervical regions. There were no significant variations in management for junctional incomplete (p = 0.116) or complete (p = 0.342) burst fractures between geographic regions. Surgeons with more than 10 years of experience were more likely to operatively manage A3 (p < 0.001) and A4 (p < 0.001) fractures than their younger counterparts. Neurosurgeons were more likely to offer surgical stabilization of A3 (p < 0.001) and A4 (p < 0.001) fractures than their orthopedic colleagues. Clinicians from both specialties agreed regarding their preference for fixation of lower junctional A3 (p = 0.866) and A4 (p = 0.368) fractures. Overall, surgical fixation was recommended more often for A4 than A3 fractures in all four scenarios (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The subaxial cervical spine should not be considered a single unified entity. Both A3 and A4 fracture subtypes were more likely to be surgically managed at the cervicothoracic junction than the upper or middle subaxial cervical regions. The authors also determined that treatment strategies for A3 and A4 subaxial cervical spine fractures varied significantly, with the latter demonstrating a greater likelihood of operative management. These findings should be reflected in future subaxial cervical spine trauma algorithms.

Costs Associated With Timely and Delayed Surgical Treatment of Spinal Metastases.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. OBJECTIVES: Symptoms caused by spinal metastases are often difficult to distinguish from symptoms caused by non-malignant spinal disease, complicating timely diagnosis, referral and treatment. The ensuing delays may promote the risk of neurological deficits or severe mechanical instability and consequent emergency surgery, leading to poorer prognosis. Presumably, treatment delay may subsequently lead to more health-care consumption and therefore increased average costs of treatment. METHODS: All patients surgically treated for spinal metastases were included in the current study. Based on the presence of alarming symptoms and urgency of the required intervention, patients were categorized as having received timely or delayed treatment. Pre-surgical, in-hospital, aftercare and total costs were analyzed and compared between the 2 groups. RESULTS: In total, 299 patients were included, of which 205 underwent timely and 94 delayed treatment. There was no significant difference in pre-surigcal costs (€3.229,13 in the timely treated group vs. €2.528,70 in the delayed treatment group, p = 0.849). The in-hospital costs (€16.738,49 vs. €13.108,81, p < 0.001) and the aftercare costs (€13.950,37 vs. 3.981,93, p < 0.001) were significantly higher for delayed treatment vs. timely treatment, respectively. The total costs were €33.741,71 for delayed treatment and €20.318,52 for timely treatment (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The total costs for timely treated patients with spinal metastases are significantly lower compared with patients receiving delayed treatment. Investing in the optimization of referral patterns may therefore reduce the overall pretreatment delay and subsequently increase patient outcome, leading to better clinical outcomes at lower costs.

Update on Upper Cervical Injury Classifications: The New AO Upper Cervical Spine Classification System.

The upper cervical spine accounts for the largest proportion of cervical range of motion afforded by a complex system of bony morphology and ligamentous stability. Its unique anatomy, however, also makes it particularly vulnerable during both low and high energy trauma. Trauma to this area, referred to as upper cervical spine trauma, can disrupt the stability of the upper cervical spine and result in a wide spectrum of injury. Numerous upper cervical injury classification systems have been proposed, each of which have distinct limitations and drawbacks that have prevented their universal adoption. In this article, we provide an overview of previous classifications, with an emphasis on the development of the new AO Spine Upper Cervical Classification System (AO Spine UCCS).

Wide range of applications for machine-learning prediction models in orthopedic surgical outcome: a systematic review.

Background and purpose - Advancements in software and hardware have enabled the rise of clinical prediction models based on machine learning (ML) in orthopedic surgery. Given their growing popularity and their likely implementation in clinical practice we evaluated which outcomes these new models have focused on and what methodologies are being employed.Material and methods - We performed a systematic search in PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library for studies published up to June 18, 2020. Studies reporting on non-ML prediction models or non-orthopedic outcomes were excluded. After screening 7,138 studies, 59 studies reporting on 77 prediction models were included. We extracted data regarding outcome, study design, and reported performance metrics.Results - Of the 77 identified ML prediction models the most commonly reported outcome domain was medical management (17/77). Spinal surgery was the most commonly involved orthopedic subspecialty (28/77). The most frequently employed algorithm was neural networks (42/77). Median size of datasets was 5,507 (IQR 635-26,364). The median area under the curve (AUC) was 0.80 (IQR 0.73-0.86). Calibration was reported for 26 of the models and 14 provided decision-curve analysis.Interpretation - ML prediction models have been developed for a wide variety of topics in orthopedics. Topics regarding medical management were the most commonly studied. Heterogeneity between studies is based on study size, algorithm, and time-point of outcome. Calibration and decision-curve analysis were generally poorly reported.

Traumatic Sternal Fractures can be Safely Treated Conservatively - A 13-Year Retrospective Cohort Study.

Background: Traumatic sternal fractures are rare injuries with little evidence supporting the best treatment strategy. This study assessed treatment outcomes from our level-I trauma centre. Methods: A retrospective cohort study was conducted, including all sternal fracture patients admitted to our level-I trauma centre between 2007 and 2019. Patients with sternal fractures due to cardiopulmonary resuscitation, patients <16 years, patients who died during initial hospital stay, and patients lost to follow-up were excluded from analysis. Results: In 13 years, 355 patients with traumatic sternal fractures were admitted, corresponding to 2% of all trauma patients. 262 patients were included in analysis. Mean age was 52 years and 71% of patients were male. Mean ISS was 19 (range 4-66). The majority of sternal fractures was located in the sternal body. Six patients (2%) underwent primary sternal fixation. Treatment failure occurred in three patients (1%) and was significantly higher in the surgical treatment group (p=0.001). There was no difference in treatment failure between patients with and without concomitant spinal fractures. Conclusions: Conservative treatment is safe and effective for traumatic sternal fractures. Surgical treatment should be reserved for rare cases, such as imminent respiratory failure or debilitating symptomatic non-union.

Current treatment and outcomes of traumatic sternovertebral fractures: a systematic review.

PURPOSE: Combined sternal and spinal fractures are rare traumatic injuries with significant risk of spinal and thoracic wall instability. Controversy remains with regard to treatment strategies and the biomechanical need for sternal fixation to achieve spinal healing. The present study aimed to assess outcomes of sternovertebral fracture treatment. METHODS: A systematic review of literature on the treatment of traumatic sternovertebral fractures was conducted. Original studies published after 1990, reporting sternal and spinal healing or stability were included. Studies not reporting treatment outcomes were excluded. RESULTS: Six studies were included in this review, with a total study population of 98 patients: 2 case series, 3 case reports, and 1 retrospective cohort study. 10 per cent of sternal fractures showed displacement. Most spinal fractures were located in the thoracic spine and were AOSpine type A (51%), type B (35%), or type C (14%). 14 per cent of sternal fractures and 49% of spinal fractures were surgically treated. Sternal treatment failure occurred in 5% of patients and biomechanical spinal failure in 8%. There were no differences in treatment failure between conservative and operative treatment. CONCLUSION: Literature on traumatic sternovertebral fracture treatment is sparse. Findings indicate that in most patients, sternal fixation is not required to achieve sternal and spinal stability. However, results of the current review should be cautiously interpreted, since most included studies were of poor quality.

Study methodology in trauma care: towards question-based study designs.

The randomized controlled trial (RCT) in surgery may not always be ethical, feasible, or necessary to address a particular research question about the effect of a surgical intervention. If so, properly designed and conducted observational (non-randomized) studies may be valuable alternatives for an RCT and produce credible results. In this paper, we discus differences between RCTs and observational studies and differentiate between three types of comparisons of surgical interventions. We assert that results of different designs should be regarded as complementary to each other when evaluating surgical interventions. Criteria for credible observational research are presented to provide guidance for future observational research of surgical interventions. We argue that the research question that is being asked should guide the discussion about the value of a particular study design.