Osteoporotic mid-thoracic vertebral body fractures: what are the differences compared to fractures of the lumbar spine?-a systematic review.

PURPOSE: The aim of this systematically review is to detect differences between fractures located at the mid-thoracic spine compared to fractures of the thoracolumbar junction (TLJ) and the lumbar spine in osteoporotic vertebral body fractures. METHODS: This review is based on articles retrieved by a systematic search in the PubMed and Web of Science database for publications regarding osteoporotic fractures of the thoracolumbar spine with respect to the fracture location. Differences in prevalence, cause of fracture, fracture healing, and outcomes between the mid-thoracic spine and the TLJ and the lumbar spine were considered. RESULTS: Altogether, 238 articles could be retrieved from the literature search. A total of 222 articles were excluded. Thus, 16 remaining original articles were included in this systematic review comprising the topics prevalence, bone mineral density and regional blood flow, biomechanics, subsequent fractures, and outcome, respectively. The overall level of evidence of the vast majority of studies was moderate to low. CONCLUSION: Several differences between osteoporotic fractures of the mid-thoracic spine compared to the TLJ and the lumbar spine could be identified. Thereby, osteoporotic mid-thoracic fractures seem to be particularly more related to frailty without a history of traumatic injury compared to osteoporotic fractures of the TLJ and the lumbar spine. Additionally, the presence of severe mid-thoracic fractures predicts subsequent fractures of the hip. In contrast, subsequent fractures of the spine are less likely.

OF-Pelvis classification of osteoporotic sacral and pelvic ring fractures.

OBJECTIVES: Osteoporotic fractures of the pelvis (OFP) are an increasing issue in orthopedics. Current classification systems (CS) are mostly CT-based and complex and offer only moderate to substantial inter-rater reliability (interRR) and intra-rater reliability (intraRR). MRI is thus gaining importance as a complement. This study aimed to develop a simple and reliable CT- and MRI-based CS for OFP. METHODS: A structured iterative procedure was conducted to reach a consensus among German-speaking spinal and pelvic trauma experts over 5 years. As a result, the proposed OF-Pelvis CS was developed. To assess its reliability, 28 experienced trauma and orthopedic surgeons categorized 25 anonymized cases using X-ray, CT, and MRI scans twice via online surveys. A period of 4 weeks separated the completion of the first from the second survey, and the cases were presented in an altered order. While 13 of the raters were also involved in developing the CS (developing raters (DR)), 15 user raters (UR) were not deeply involved in the development process. To assess the interRR of the OF-Pelvis categories, Fleiss' kappa (κF) was calculated for each survey. The intraRR for both surveys was calculated for each rater using Kendall's tau (τK). The presence of a modifier was calculated with κF for interRR and Cohen's kappa (κC) for intraRR. RESULTS: The OF-Pelvis consists of five subgroups and three modifiers. Instability increases from subgroups 1 (OF1) to 5 (OF5) and by a given modifier. The three modifiers can be assigned alone or in combination. In both surveys, the interRR for subgroups was substantial: κF = 0.764 (Survey 1) and κF = 0.790 (Survey 2). The interRR of the DR and UR was nearly on par (κF Survey 1/Survey 2: DR 0.776/0.813; UR 0.748/0.766). The agreement for each of the five subgroups was also strong (κF min.-max. Survey 1/Survey 2: 0.708-0.827/0.747-0.852). The existence of at least one modifier was rated with substantial agreement (κF Survey 1/Survey 2: 0.646/0.629). The intraRR for subgroups showed almost perfect agreement (τK = 0.894, DR: τK = 0.901, UR: τK = 0.889). The modifier had an intraRR of κC = 0.684 (DR: κC = 0.723, UR: κC = 0.651), which is also considered substantial. CONCLUSION: The OF-Pelvis is a reliable tool to categorize OFP with substantial interRR and almost perfect intraRR. The similar reliabilities between experienced DRs and URs demonstrate that the training status of the user is not important. However, it may be a reliable basis for an indication of the treatment score.

Osteoporotic Fractures of the Thoracic and Lumbar Vertebrae: Diagnosis and Conservative Treatment.

BACKGROUND: The prevalence of osteoporotic vertebral body fractures in Europe is 18-26%. Although most of these injuries can be treated conservatively, the underlying concepts have not been defined clearly or uniformly. In this article, we present the current state of the evidence on the diagnosis and conservative treatment of osteoporotic fractures of the thoracic and lumbar vertebrae. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature up to May 2020 was carried out in the PubMed and Web of Science Core Collection databases. 549 articles were identified, of which 36 were suitable for inclusion in the review. Articles were sought in the areas of diagnosis, provision of physical aids, pharmacotherapy, physiotherapy, and treatments from the realm of alternative medicine. RESULTS: The primary diagnostic technique was conventional x-ray in two planes (with the patient standing, if possible), which had 51.3% sensitivity and 75% specificity. If a fracture was suspected, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the entire spine and regional computed tomography (CT) were carried out. The overall state of the evidence on treatment is poor; the best available evidence is for exercise therapy and physiotherapy, which are supported by three level I and four level II studies. Improvements were seen mainly in mobility and a reduced fear of falling. The use of an active orthosis can be useful as well. No evidence was found on the use of drugs or alternative medicine exclusively in the conservative treatment of osteoporotic vertebral body fractures. CONCLUSION: It is reasonable to evaluate instability with imaging repeatedly, at regular intervals, over a period of six months. There is still a lack of reliable data on the optimal intensity and duration of physiotherapy, and on the use of orthoses.

[Minimally invasive stabilization of thoracolumbar osteoporotic fractures]. / Minimal-invasive Stabilisierung bei thorakolumbalen osteoporotischen Frakturen.

BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive stabilization of thoracolumbar osteoporotic fractures (OF) in neurologically intact patients is well established. Various posterior and anterior surgical techniques are available. The OF classification and OF score are helpful for defining the indications and choice of operative technique. OBJECTIVE: This article gives an overview of the minimally invasive stabilization techniques, typical complications and outcome. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Selective literature search and description of surgical techniques and outcome. RESULTS: Vertebral body augmentation alone can be indicated in painful but stable fractures of types OF 1 and OF 2 and to some extent for type OF 3. Kyphoplasty has proven to be an effective and safe procedure with a favorable clinical outcome. Unstable fractures and kyphotic deformities (types OF 3-5) should be percutaneously stabilized from posterior. The length of the pedicle screw construct depends on the extent of instability and deformity. Bone cement augmentation of the pedicle screws is indicated in severe osteoporosis but increases the complication rate. Restoration of stability of the anterior column can be achieved through additional vertebral body augmentation or rarely by anterior stabilization. Clinical and radiological short and mid-term results of the stabilization techniques are promising; however, the more invasive the surgery, the more complications occur. CONCLUSION: Minimally invasive stabilization techniques are safe and effective. The specific indications for the individual procedures are guided by the OF classification and the individual clinical situation of the patient.

Recommendations for Diagnosis and Treatment of Odontoid Fractures in Geriatric Patients. / Empfehlungen zu Diagnostik und Behandlung von Frakturen des Dens axis bei geriatrischen Patienten.

BACKGROUND: Odontoid fractures in geriatric patients represent an entity of increasing incidence with a high rate of morbidity and mortality. The optimal diagnostic and therapeutic management is being controversially discussed in the literature. METHODS: In a consensus process and based on the current literature, the members of the working groups "Osteoporotic Fractures" and "Upper Cervical Spine" of the German Society for Orthopaedics and Trauma Surgery (DGOU) defined recommendations for the diagnostics and treatment of odontoid fractures in geriatric patients. RESULTS: For the diagnosis of odontoid fractures in symptomatic patients, computed tomography represents the gold standard, along with conventional radiographs. Magnetic resonance and dynamic imaging can be used as ancillary imaging modalities. With regard to fracture classification, the systems described by Anderson/D'Alonzo and by Eysel/Roosen have proved to be of value. A treatment algorithm was developed based on these classifications. Anderson/D'Alonzo type 1, type 3, and non-displaced type 2 fractures usually can be treated non-operatively. However, a close clinical and radiological follow-up is essential. In Anderson/D'Alonzo type 2 fractures, operative treatment is associated with better fracture healing. Displaced type 2 and type 3 fractures should be stabilized operatively. Type 2 fractures with suitable fracture patterns (Eysel/Roosen 2A/B) can be stabilized anteriorly. Posterior C I/II-stabilization procedures are well established and suitable for all fracture patterns.