Atormac
briv
Neurology India
menu-bar5 Open access journal indexed with Index Medicus
  Users online: 1225  
 Home | Login 
About Editorial board Articlesmenu-bullet NSI Publicationsmenu-bullet Search Instructions Online Submission Subscribe Videos Etcetera Contact
  Navigate Here 
 Search
 
  
 Resource Links
  »  Similar in PUBMED
 »  Search Pubmed for
 »  Search in Google Scholar for
 »Related articles
  »  Article in PDF (2,141 KB)
  »  Citation Manager
  »  Access Statistics
  »  Reader Comments
  »  Email Alert *
  »  Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  

 
  In this Article
 »  Abstract
 »  Materials and Me...
 » Results
 » Discussion
 » Limitations
 » Conclusion
 »  References
 »  Article Figures
 »  Article Tables

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed454    
    Printed0    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded11    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal

 


 
Table of Contents    
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2021  |  Volume : 69  |  Issue : 2  |  Page : 399-405

Transpedicular Approach for Corpectomy and Circumferential Arthrodesis in Traumatic Lumbar Vertebral Body Burst Fractures: A Retrospective Analysis of Outcome in 35 Patients


Department of Neurosurgery, All India Institute of Medical Sciences and Jai Prakash Narayan Trauma Centre, New Delhi, India

Date of Submission13-Dec-2018
Date of Decision02-Jan-2020
Date of Acceptance12-Feb-2021
Date of Web Publication24-Apr-2021

Correspondence Address:
Amandeep Kumar
Department of Neurosurgery, All India Institute of Medical Sciences and Jai Prakash Narayan Trauma Centre, New Delhi - 110 029
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/0028-3886.314521

Rights and Permissions

 » Abstract 


Background: Traumatic vertebral burst fractures can be surgically approached via different approaches (anterior/posterior, or combined). Transpedicular approach (TA) is a posterior approach that has the advantage of achieving circumferential arthrodesis via single posterior only approach. The purpose of this study was to analyze our experience with TA in management of traumatic lumbar burst fractures (TLBFs).
Materials and Methods: All consecutive patients with TLBFs managed with TA over 5 years duration were included in this retrospective study. Correction of kyphotic deformity and change in neurological status were analyzed to assess outcome. Cobb's angle and ASIA grade were used for this purpose.
Results: There were 21 males and 14 females. Eight patients had complete (ASIA-A) while 22 had incomplete injury. All patients had a TLICS score >=4. The mean preoperative Cobb's angle was 13.97° that improved to -3.57° postoperatively (mean kyphosis correction-17.54°). None of the patients developed iatrogenic nerve root injury. There was no perioperative mortality. The mean cobb's angle was 1.23° at 39.1 months follow-up. Eight patients developed cage subsidence but none required revision surgery. Postoperatively, 27 (77.1%) patients showed neurological improvement and none deteriorated. The median ASIA score improved from 3 to 5. A fusion rate of 91.4% was observed at last follow-up.
Conclusions: The advantages of TA including sense of familiarity with posterior approach amongst spine surgeons, lesser approach-related morbidity, and results comparable to anterior/combined approaches, make TA an attractive option for managing TLBFs. Although technically difficult, it can be successfully used for circumferential arthrodesis in lumbar region without sacrificing nerve roots.


Keywords: Circumferential arthrodesis, corpectomy, posterior transpedicular approach, single stage posterior only approach, traumatic lumbar burst fractures
Key Message: Transpedicular approach for circumferential arthrodesis in TLBFs is a challenging approach. However, the sense of familiarity amongst spine surgeons, lesser approach-related morbidity, shorter operative time and results comparable to anterior/combined approaches make TA an attractive and a viable approach for TLBF.


How to cite this article:
Garg M, Kumar A, Singh PK, Mahalangikar R, Satyarthee GD, Agrawal D, Gupta D, Gurjar HK, Mishra S, Chandra PS, Kale SS. Transpedicular Approach for Corpectomy and Circumferential Arthrodesis in Traumatic Lumbar Vertebral Body Burst Fractures: A Retrospective Analysis of Outcome in 35 Patients. Neurol India 2021;69:399-405

How to cite this URL:
Garg M, Kumar A, Singh PK, Mahalangikar R, Satyarthee GD, Agrawal D, Gupta D, Gurjar HK, Mishra S, Chandra PS, Kale SS. Transpedicular Approach for Corpectomy and Circumferential Arthrodesis in Traumatic Lumbar Vertebral Body Burst Fractures: A Retrospective Analysis of Outcome in 35 Patients. Neurol India [serial online] 2021 [cited 2021 May 13];69:399-405. Available from: https://www.neurologyindia.com/text.asp?2021/69/2/399/314521




Traumatic lumbar fractures account for ~ 44% of all traumatic vertebral fractures.[1] Traumatic lumbar burst fractures (TLBFs) may cause canal compromise and neural compression from fractured fragments as well as kyphotic deformity. The goal of surgical management in fractures requiring surgical intervention is to achieve adequate decompression of spinal canal, correction of kyphotic deformity and spinal stabilization. This requires corpectomy followed by anterior column reconstruction along with pedicle screws and rod (PSR) insertion to achieve circumferential arthrodesis.

Transpedicular approach (TA) that includes transpedicular corpectomy and anterior column reconstruction via a posterior only approach, combined with PSR fixation, can achieve canal decompression and circumferential arthrodesis via single posterior approach.[2],[3],[4],[5],[6],[7],[8],[9],[10],[11],[12],[13],[14],[15],[16],[17] TA has mostly been described for non-traumatic vertebral pathologies including primary or metastatic vertebral tumors, especially of thoracic spine where the thoracic nerves can be sacrificed with impunity[3],[4],[8],[10],[13],[15],[18],[19],[20] However, transpedicular corpectomy for TLBFs is technically challenging because of the indispensable lumbar nerve roots.[2],[3],[4],[5],[6],[7]

In this retrospective study, we present our experience in managing TLBFs using TA. The surgical technique, results of surgery, complications, patient outcome and pertinent literature are discussed in detail.


 » Materials and Methods Top


This was a retrospective study conducted at a tertiary care trauma center. We included 35 patients with TLBFs who underwent circumferential arthrodesis via TA over a period of 5 years. Patient's casualty/in-patient records, radiological investigations (MRI and NCCT), operation notes and out-patient records were scrutinized to collate data. Demographic details, pre- and postoperative neurological status, preoperative deformity, intraoperative details, duration of hospital stay, deformity correction and bony fusion at last follow-up were analyzed.

Preoperative assessment

A detailed preoperative neurological examination was done and recorded. Patient's neurological status was then scored using ASIA scoring system.[21] All patients underwent preoperative spine CT scan to look for type of fracture and the extent of canal compromise. Cobb's angle,[22] defined as the angle between lines drawn along superior endplate of unaffected vertebral body (VB) rostral to deformity, and inferior endplate of unaffected VB caudal to deformity, was used to quantify deformity. Most patients also underwent preoperative MRI for assessing the presence of disc prolapse and injury/compression of spinal cord/nerve roots. All patients included in the study either had post-traumatic kyphosis or a fracture fragment impinging on the cord. Thoracolumbar Injury Classification and Severity (TLICS) was used to decide between conservative or surgical management.

Operative procedure

After positioning the patient prone, posterior bony elements were exposed and bilateral laminectomies of fractured vertebra were performed to decompress thecal sac. Pedicle screws were inserted under C-arm/O-arm guidance and a rod was placed on right side and distracted to open up the space for corpectomy. The superior and inferior facets surrounding the pedicle of VB to be resected were drilled to expose the pedicle and nerve root. Initially, pedicle on left side was removed followed by corpectomy using high-speed drill, curettes and rongeurs [Figure 1]. Posterior longitudinal ligament was preserved to prevent thecal sac damage from drill/instruments. Majority of VB could be removed through unilateral transpedicular route, the remainder was removed through contralateral pedicle. Resection of cortical bone immediately behind great vessels was not done to avoid vascular injury.[9],[10] The intervertebral discs (both rostral and caudal to the resected VB) were thoroughly removed. The cartilaginous endplate was meticulously removed while exercising due caution to avoid gross violation of bony endplates. The cavity was then thoroughly washed with saline to remove any loose disc fragments. The exiting nerve roots at corpectomy level were preserved (black arrow heads in [Figure 1]a and [Figure 1]b). Anterior reconstruction was performed by inserting titanium expandable/mesh cages filled with autologous bone. For safe insertion of cage, roots were mobilized and cage was inserted along the axis of nerve roots and then turned in situ to lie along the long axis of spine. The collapsed cage was positioned with caudal portion of cage in contact with endplate of caudal vertebra, while rostral portion of cage telescoped superiorly with expansion. Mesh cage was cut in appropriate size and positioned by placing inferior end of cage against superior endplate of VB below, then the cage was rotated and superior aspect of cage was gently tapped against inferior endplate of vertebral body above [Figure 2]. After cage placement, compression was applied across posterior pedicle screw fixation so that the cage snugly fits and remains in contact with end plates on either side. However, caution was exercised to avoid overzealous compression which could increase the risk of cage subsidence. The posterior bony elements of vertebrae above and below were then decorticated with drill to achieve raw bony surface and then covered with locally harvested bone fragments. The removal of all three columns at fracture site and distraction achieved by placing an inter-body cage made it feasible to achieve restoration of height and deformity correction [Figure 3] and [Figure 4].
Figure 1: Intraoperative images demonstrating the procedure of posterior transpedicular corpectomy. After laminectomy to expose the thecal sac (black star in a), the articular processes of fractured vertebra are removed to expose ipsilateral pedicle and nerve root (black arrow heads in a and b). The nerve root is mobilized and retracted with a nerve root retractor. High-speed drill is then used to drill out the vertebral body through the pedicle. Superior and inferior intervertebral discs are then removed to expose end plates of vertebral body above and below

Click here to view
Figure 2: Intraoperative images demonstrating the technique of mesh cage placement while preserving the lumbar nerve root. After corpectomy, distraction is applied across the corpectomy level (a). The bone graft-filled mesh cage is placed parallel to end plates (b) and then tilted so that its one end enters intervertebral space (c). It is then rotated such that one of its ends comes in contact with superior and the other with inferior end plate (d-i). The position is confirmed with an X-ray and then compression is applied across the corpectomy level to ensure the cage is snugly fit

Click here to view
Figure 3: Pre-operative NCCT shows L1 vertebral body burst fracture with canal compromise (a). Patient underwent circumferential arthrodesis via TA. A titanium mesh cage placement and short-segment pedicle screw fixation achieved good kyphosis correction. A follow-up NCCT at 22 months revealed well decompressed spinal canal and formation of bridging bone across the mesh cage (b)

Click here to view
Figure 4: Pre-operative NCCT shows L3 vertebral burst fracture, canal compromise and mild kyphotic deformity (a). Patient underwent corpectomy, expandable inter-body cage placement and short-segment posterior fixation (b). Immediate post-operative NCCT showed well decompressed spinal canal and correction of lumbar lordosis (c). Follow-up scan at 18 months revealed cage subsidence of 4.2 mm and mild loss of kyphosis correction

Click here to view


Postoperative assessment

A detailed postoperative neurological examination was done and scored using ASIA scoring at each follow-up. Neurological status was categorized as improved, stable or worsened based upon ASIA grade change. Postoperative NCCT was done in all patients before discharge and then during follow-up. Cobb's angle was measured on postoperative and follow-up NCCT. Also CT scans were analyzed for fusion, subsidence of cage or implant failure. Bony fusion was evaluated using radiographic criteria i.e., formation of bridging trabecular bone and absence of a dark halo around the implant or implant fracture.[23],[24]


 » Results Top


A total of 35 patients underwent circumferential arthrodesis via TA during study period. The age range of patients was 13-58 years with an average of 28.4 years. There were 21 males and 14 females. The mode of injury was road traffic accident in 29, fall from height in 3 and fall of a heavy object in 3 patients. L1 was the most common vertebra involved in 18 (51%) patients followed by L2 in 9 (25%) patients [Table 1].
Table 1: Demographic characteristics and operative/ perioperative data

Click here to view


Preoperative neurological status: [Table 1]

Amongst 35 patients with available follow-up, 8 (22.2%) belonged to ASIA A with complete loss of motor/sensory and bowel/bladder function below the level of injury. Twenty (57%) patients had incomplete neurological deficits (ASIA C and D) while 2 (5%) patients had only sensations intact with paraplegia (ASIA B). Only 5 (13.9%) patients were neurologically intact (ASIA E) pre-operatively. All the patients had a TLICS score >=4 and thus were managed surgically.

Preoperative deformity

Preoperative Cobb's angle was calculated in all patients. Most of the patients presented with kyphotic deformity of 10-20° and the mean preoperative kyphotic deformity was 13.97°.

Operative parameters and Perioperative Complications: [Table 1]

The mean duration of surgery was 386 minutes (range: 240-660 min) and mean blood loss was 1352 mL (range: 500–5000 mL). The patient with 5000 mL blood loss had excessive bleeding from the pravertebral venous plexus as well as from the fractures VB. Short segment (one segment cephalad and one caudal to level of corpectomy ) fixation was done in 23 patients while 12 patients underwent long segment (>=2) fixation. The decision of short/long segment fusion was based on surgeon's preference. The expandable cage was used in 21 and mesh cage in 14 patients. Iatrogenic durotomies occurred in four patients while dural tears secondary to trauma were found in nine patients. Preexistent nerve root injury attributable to trauma was encountered in three patients and none suffered iatrogenic injury.

Postoperatively, two patients had surgical wound infection with dehiscence, which required debridement and resuturing. There was no perioperative mortality or postoperative neurological deterioration. The mean postoperative hospital stay was 5.92 (2–22) days [Table 1].

Neurological status at last follow-up: [Table 2]
Table 2: Neurological outcome in 35 patients at last follow-up

Click here to view


Out of 35 patients, 27 (77.1%) showed neurological improvement after surgery. Amongst these 27 patients, 17 (48.6%) had improvement by one ASIA grade, 8 (22.8%) improved by 2 grades and 2 (5.7%) patients improved by 3 grades. The improvement in motor functions was observed in 26 (74.2%) patients. Nineteen (54.3%) patients had preoperative bladder and bowel disturbances, which improved in 5 (14.3%) patients. One patient regained bladder sensations but remained incontinent. Three patients with preoperative ASIAA and 5 with ASIAE score remained neurologically same, while none of the patients showed neurological deterioration. The median ASIA score improved from 3 to 5.

Status of deformity at last follow-up

The cobb's angle of lordotic spine after deformity correction was marked as negative to determine extent of correction. The mean preoperative and postoperative cobb's angles were 13.97° and –3.57°, respectively, thus achieving a mean cobb's angle correction of 17.54°. Over a mean follow-up of 39.1 months, there was a loss of lordosis to some extent in some patients with cage subsidence seen in 8 patients. Out of these, 6 were observed in patients with expandabale cage and two were observed in patients with mesh cage. The mean Cobb's angle during follow-up was 1.23° thus resulting in loss of 4.8°.

Fusion: Over a mean follow-up of ~39.1 months, 91.4% patients achieved bony fusion.

Delayed complications

During follow-up scans, eight patients had cage subsidence of >2.5 mm [Figure 4c] with an average subsidence of 7.2 mm and 1 patient had a broken pedicle screw. The subsidence was measured on CT scans and was defined as the sum of subsidence of superior and inferior ends of cage into VB. These patients complained of mild backache which was controlled with analgesics and none of them required revision surgery.


 » Discussion Top


Though optimal treatment for TLBFs, in absence of neurological deficits or significant instability, still remains a matter of debate,[25],[26],[27],[28] surgical decompression and fixation is usually recommended for patients with significant deformity and in those with neurological deficits due to canal compromise.[18],[29] Surgical management in these patients requires corpectomy and spinal canal decompression followed by circumferential arthrodesis. The choice of surgical approach (anterior/combined vs posterior), however, remains a matter of debate.[18],[29],[30],[21],[32],[33],[34],[35],[36],[37]

Anterior approach, first described by Burns[38] in 1933, has been used by many authors for various pathological conditions of spine.[2],[29],[31],[32],[33],[34],[35],[39],[40],[41],[42] Though, anterior approach has certain advantages including direct access and decompression of spinal canal, straight forward graft/cage placement, correction of kyphotic deformity, no para-vertebral muscle dissection, no risk of nerve root injury or cerebrospinal fluid leakage,[2],[29],[33],[34],[40] it is a relatively more invasive approach that requires traversing body cavities with unavoidable handling of viscera and great vessels. Such an extensive surgery becomes especially demanding in those who are obese, have co-morbidities and those who have had previous abdominal surgeries.[3],[4],[18],[31],[32],[39],[43],[44],[45] It is also associated with late visualization of neural elements and requires two separate incisions for combined anterior-posterior approach, each with additive risks and prolonged hospital stay.[3],[4],[18],[31],[32],[39],[43],[44],[45] The most common complications reported with anterior approach are vascular injuries (range 1-16%) followed by thromboembolic events (0 to 12%).[31],[40],[46] Other complications causing substantial morbidity include abdominal hernias and possible impotence or retrograde ejaculation in male patients.[40] Vahldiek and Punjabi[47] and Khodadadyan-Klostermann et al.[48] have recommended that anterior column stabilization with cage placement and anterior plating is insufficient to provided required stability following corpectomy in thoracic and lumbar region. Thus, anterior approach may also require additional posterior approach for achieving 360° fusion.[3],[33],[42],[43]

Posterior approach for lumbar interbody fusion was first described by Cloward[49] but it did not become popular due to high complication rates. Later, modifications to include pedicle screw fixation resulted in improved rates of arthrodesis with decreased rates of graft extrusion.[49],[50] However, a high failure rate of standalone posterior instrumentation via PA and later need of augmentation by AA in a significant number of patients is an important argument in favor of AA and against posterior approach.[4],[33],[43],[45] TA combines the advantages of both anterior and posterior approaches to achieve circumferential arthrodesis from posterior route only, thereby obviating the need for an additional AA and also offers familiarity, less invasiveness, early visualization of neural elements and decreased morbidity of posterior approach.[3],[4],[5],[6],[7],[8],[9],[10],[11],[12],[13],[14],[15],[16],[17] TA for thoracic corpectomy and interbody cage placement has been a well-described approach and can be performed with little difficulty as thoracic nerve roots can be easily sacrificed.[3],[4],[13],[18],[19],[20],[22],[30] The real difficulty is in performing this approach in lumbar spine where one can not sacrifice the roots and available working corridors are thus very narrow. This is the main reason why TA has not gained popularity amongst surgeons for lumbar spinal pathologies. However, recently, there has been a growing interest in this approach for managing various pathologies of lumbar region as well[4],[5],[6],[7],[8],[9],[10],[11],[12],[13],[14],[15],[16],[17],[30] and one of the major reasons for this has been the availability of various types of interbody cages including nondistractable mesh cages and expandable ones.[48],[51] The nondistractable mesh cages are more difficult to be inserted as compared with expandable cages. In this study, successful mesh cage placement was performed in 15 patients. Pre-insertion slight distraction across corpectomy level helped in insertion of appropriate sized cage in all cases [Figure 2]. However, an important encouraging advancement has been the development of expandable titanium cages which are easier to be inserted in compressed state through narrow corridors bounded by lumbar nerve roots and can be expanded once placed in desired position and orientation.[5],[12],[13],[14] In this study 21 patients underwent expandable cage placement. In our study, we found no significant difference in terms of fusion rates, subsidence or construct failure between the groups of patients undergoing mesh/expandable cage placement.

In this study, we achieved a kyphosis correction of 17.54 degree (from 13.97° to -3.57°), which is comparable to what has been described in literature.[4],[5],[6],[7],[8],[9],[10],[11],[12],[13],[14],[15],[16],[17],[18],[42],[52] Wang et al.[14] reported a kyphosis correction from 26° preoperatively to 12.4° postoperatively amongst 14 patients with lumbar fractures undergoing surgery via TA.

Sciubbia et al.[12] successfully used TA to achieve average kyphosis correction of 15.9° (from 28° to 12.1° at a 16-month follow-up). Recently, Choi et al.[16] described TA for circumferential arthrodesis in 11 patients with traumatic lumbar fractures. They achieved a mean kyphosis correction of 7.7°(9.2° to 16.9°) after surgery. These results are comparable to those achieved by anterior approaches by various authors.[2],[18],[29],[33],[34],[37],[40],[41],[52]

In this study, we observed a loss of deformity correction from -3.57° to 0.52° (loss of 4.22°) during 29.1 month follow-up. The loss of kyphosis correction has been consistently observed in various studies in literature. Wang et al.[14] also reported a loss of kyphosis correction from 12.4° to 13.3° at 31 months follow-up after single-stage thoracolumbar corpectomies and placement of expandable cages in 28 patients. Similarly, Choi et al.[16] also observed a loss of kyphosis angle from 16.9° to 15.1° over a 12-month follow-up period. Similarly, loss of kyphosis correction has also been observed by authors using anterior approaches.[2],[40],[41]

In our study, neurological improvement was observed in 28 (77.8%) patients while none deteriorated after surgery. There was an average improvement in ASIA score from 2.97 to 4.17 over a period of 29.1 months. Wang et al.[14] reported an improvement in ASIA score from 3.7 to 4.5 over 31 months in their study of 28 patients with traumatic fractures operated via posterior approach. Similarly, Sasani et al.[5] and Hofstetter et al.[30] noted improvement from 4.0 to 4.4 and 3.7 to 4.2 in their respective studies of 14 and 67 patients with a follow-up period of 24 and 14 months, respectively.

The mean estimated blood loss (EBL) and mean operative time in this study were 1352 mL and 393.8 min, respectively, which are comparable to that reported in literature[3],[13],[15] Danisa et al.[18] compared the results of surgery in thoracolumbar burst fractures, operated via anterior, posterior or combined approaches. They concluded that posterior approach was associated with a statistically significant decrease in operative time, blood loss and need of blood transfusion as compared with anterior and combined approaches. On the other hand, no statistically significant difference was seen with respect to degree of kyphosis correction or improvement in neurological functions. Similarly, Lu DC et al.[3] while comparing anterior, posterior and combined approaches concluded that morbidity is lesser and hospital stay shorter in patients undergoing surgery via posterior only approach. The anterior-posterior approach was associated with longer mean surgical times (729 vs 450 minutes), increased EBL (3154 vs 1857 mL) and higher complication rates (41 vs. 29%). Similarly results have been reported by others as well.[8]

The literature as well as the results of this study clearly demonstrate the feasibility of circumferential arthrodesis via TA in lumbar region, as well as results comparable to those achieved with anterior or combined anterior and posterior approaches. In addition TA is associated with either similar or lesser complications as compared with anterior or combined approaches. TA also offers the advantage of a sense of familiarity to neurosurgeons and spine surgeons.

Our study demonstrates that it is feasible to place an adequately sized interbody cage using posterior only approach for anterior column reconstruction and without injuring nerve roots even in the lumbar region. The key is to perform wide dissection, adequate mobilization of lumbar roots and distraction across corpectomy level, thus creating a corridor for cage insertion.

The this study is one of the largest study describing corpectomy and circumferential arthrodesis via TA in patients with TLBFs. Our study is also important because it highlights the ability of TA in achieving circumferrential arthrodesis via single posterior only approach thereby avoiding the complications and risks associated with anterior and combined approaches and adds to the relatively scarce literature on the subject.


 » Limitations Top


The retrospective nature of the study is the limiting factor of our study.


 » Conclusion Top


The transpedicular approach although technically difficult can be used for deformity correction and anterior column reconstruction in TLBFs, without sacrificing nerve roots. The sense of familiarity with posterior approach amongst spine surgeons, lesser approach-related morbidity, shorter operative time, less blood loss and the results comparable to anterior or combined approaches make single-stage TA an attractive and viable alternate option for management of TLBFs and adds to the armamentarium of spine surgeons.

Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.



 
 » References Top

1.
El-Faramawy A, El-Menyar A, Zarour A, Maull K, Riebe J, Kumar K, et al. Presentation and outcome of traumatic spinal fractures. J Emerg Trauma Shock 2012;5:316-20.  Back to cited text no. 1
[PUBMED]  [Full text]  
2.
Dvorak MF, Kwon BK, Fisher CG, Eiserloh HL, Boyd M, Wing PC. Effectiveness of titanium mesh cylindrical cages in anterior column reconstruction after thoracic and lumbar vertebral body resection. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2003;28:902-8.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.
Lu DC, Lau D, Lee JG, Chou D. The transpedicular approach compared with the anterior approach: An analysis of 80 thoracolumbar corpectomies. J Neurosurg Spine 2010;12:583-91.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.
Bilsky MH, Boland P, Lis E, Raizer JJ, Healey JH. Single-stage posterolateral transpedicle approach for spondylectomy, epidural decompression, and circumferential fusion of spinal metastases. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2000;25:2240-9.  Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.
Sasani M, Ozer AF. Single-stage posterior corpectomy and expandable cage placement for treatment of thoracic or lumbar burst fractures. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2009;34:E33-40.  Back to cited text no. 5
    
6.
Snell BE, Nasr FF, Wolfla CE. Single-stage thoracolumbar vertebrectomy with circumferential reconstruction and arthrodesis: Surgical technique and results in 15 patients. Neurosurgery 2006;58 (4 Suppl 2):ONS-263-8.  Back to cited text no. 6
    
7.
Agrawal M, Garg M, Kumar A, Singh PK, Satyarthee GD, Agrawal D, et al. Management of pediatric posttraumatic thoracolumbar vertebral body burst fractures by use of single-stage posterior transpedicular approach. World Neurosurg 2018;117:e22-33. doi: 10.1016/j.wneu. 2018.05.088.  Back to cited text no. 7
    
8.
Street J, Fisher C, Sparkes J, Boyd M, Kwon B, Paquette S, et al. Single-stage posterolateral vertebrectomy for the management of metastatic disease of the thoracic and lumbar spine: A prospective study of an evolving surgical technique. J Spinal Disord Tech 2007;20:509-20.  Back to cited text no. 8
    
9.
Cahill DW, Kumar R. Palliative subtotal vertebrectomy with anterior and posterior reconstruction via a single posterior approach. J Neurosurg 1999;90 (1 Suppl):42-7.  Back to cited text no. 9
    
10.
Akeyson EW, McCutcheon IE. Single-stage posterior vertebrectomy and replacement combined with posterior instrumentation for spinal metastasis. J Neurosurg 1996;85:211-20.  Back to cited text no. 10
    
11.
Murrey DB, Brigham CD, Kiebzak GM, Finger F, Chewning SJ. Transpedicular decompression and pedicle subtraction osteotomy (eggshell procedure): A retrospective review of 59 patients. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2002;2721:2238-45.  Back to cited text no. 11
    
12.
Sciubba DM, Gallia GL, McGirt MJ, Woodworth GF, Garonzik IM, Witham T, et al. Thoracic kyphotic deformity reduction with a distractible titanium cage via an entirely posterior approach. Neurosurgery 2007;60 (4 Suppl 2):223-30.  Back to cited text no. 12
    
13.
Shen FH, Marks I, Shaffrey C, Ouellet J, Arlet V. The use of an expandable cage for corpectomy reconstruction of vertebral body tumors through a posterior extracavitary approach: A multicenter consecutive case series of prospectively followed patients. Spine J 2008;8:329-39.  Back to cited text no. 13
    
14.
Wang MY, Kim DH, Kim KA. Correction of late traumatic thoracic and thoracolumbar kyphotic spinal deformities using posteriorly placed intervertebral distraction cages. Neurosurgery 2008;62 (3 Suppl):162-71.  Back to cited text no. 14
    
15.
Jandial R, Kelly B, Chen MY. Posterior-only approach for lumbar vertebral column resection and expandable cage reconstruction for spinal metastases. J Neurosurg Spine 2013;19:27-33.  Back to cited text no. 15
    
16.
Choi JI, Kim BJ, Ha SK, Kim SD, Lim DJ, Kim SH. Single-stage Transpedicular Vertebrectomy and Expandable Cage Placement for Treatment of Unstable Mid and Lower Lumbar Burst Fractures. Clin Spine Surg 2017;30:E257-E264.  Back to cited text no. 16
    
17.
Metcalfe S, Gbejuade H, Patel NR. The posterior transpedicular approach for circumferential decompression and instrumented stabilization with titanium cage vertebrectomy reconstruction for spinal tumors: Consecutive case series of 50 patients. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2012;37:1375-83.  Back to cited text no. 17
    
18.
Danisa OA, Shaffrey CI, Jane JA, Whitehill R, Wang GJ, Szabo TA, et al. Surgical approaches for the correction of unstable thoracolumbar burst fractures: A retrospective analysis of treatment outcomes. J Neurosurg 1995;83:977-83.  Back to cited text no. 18
    
19.
Chandra SP, Ramdurg SR, Kurwale N, Chauhan A, Ansari A, Garg A, et al. Extended costotransversectomy to achieve circumferential fusion for pathologies causing thoracic instability. Spine J 2014;14:2094-101.  Back to cited text no. 19
    
20.
Chou D, Eltgroth M, Yang I, Lu D, Manley G. Rib head disarticulation for multilevel transpedicular thoracic corpectomies and expandable cage reconstruction. Neurol India 2009;57:469-74.  Back to cited text no. 20
[PUBMED]  [Full text]  
21.
Maynard FM, Bracken MB, Creasey G, Ditunno JF, Donovan WH, Ducker TB, et al. International standards for neurological and functional classification of spinal cord injury. American Spinal Injury Association. Spinal Cord 1997;35:266-74.  Back to cited text no. 21
    
22.
Keynan O, Fisher CG, Vaccaro A, Fehlings MG, Oner FC, Dietz J, et al. Radiographic measurement parameters in thoracolumbar fractures: A systematic review and consensus statement of the spine trauma study group. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2006;31:E156-65.  Back to cited text no. 22
    
23.
McAfee PC. Interbody fusion cages in reconstructive operations on the spine. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1999;81:859-80.  Back to cited text no. 23
    
24.
Ray CD. Threaded fusion cages for lumbar interbody fusions. An economic comparison with 360 degrees fusions. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1997;22:681-5.  Back to cited text no. 24
    
25.
Kraemer WJ, Schemitsch EH, Lever J, McBroom RJ, McKee MD, Waddell JP. Functional outcome of thoracolumbar burst fractures without neurological deficit. J Orthop Trauma 1996;10:541-4.  Back to cited text no. 25
    
26.
Ramieri A, Domenicucci M, Passacantilli E, Nocente M, Ciappetta P. The results of the surgical and conservative treatment of non-neurologic comminuted thoracolumbar fractures. Chir Organi Mov 2000;85:129-35.  Back to cited text no. 26
    
27.
Seybold EA, Sweeney CA, Fredrickson BE, Warhold LG, Bernini PM. Functional outcome of low lumbar burst fractures. A multicenter review of operative and nonoperative treatment of L3-L5. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1999;24:2154-61.  Back to cited text no. 27
    
28.
Denis F, Armstrong GW, Searls K, Matta L. Acute thoracolumbar burst fractures in the absence of neurologic deficit. A comparison between operative and nonoperative treatment. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1984;189:142-9.  Back to cited text no. 28
    
29.
Benzel EC, Larson SJ. Functional recovery after decompressive operation for thoracic and lumbar spine fractures. Neurosurgery 1986;19:772-8.  Back to cited text no. 29
    
30.
Hofstetter CP, Chou D, Newman CB, Aryan HE, Girardi FP, Härtl R. Posterior approach for thoracolumbar corpectomies with expandable cage placement and circumferential arthrodesis: A multicenter case series of 67 patients. J Neurosurg Spine 2011;14:388-97.  Back to cited text no. 30
    
31.
Campbell PG, Malone J, Yadla S, Maltenfort MG, Harrop JS, Sharan AD, et al. Early complications related to approach in thoracic and lumbar spine surgery: A single center prospective study. World Neurosurg 2010;73:395-401.  Back to cited text no. 31
    
32.
Chiriano J, Abou-Zamzam AM, Urayeneza O, Zhang WW, Cheng W. The role of the vascular surgeon in anterior retroperitoneal spine exposure: Preservation of open surgical training. J Vasc Surg 2009;50:148-51.  Back to cited text no. 32
    
33.
D'Aliberti G, Talamonti G, Villa F, Debernardi A, Sansalone CV, LaMaida A, et al. Anterior approach to thoracic and lumbar spine lesions: Results in 145 consecutive cases. J Neurosurg Spine 2008;9:466-82.  Back to cited text no. 33
    
34.
Nadir A, Sahin E, Ozum U, Karadag O, Tezeren G, Kaptanoglu M. Thoracotomy in spine surgery. Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2008;56:482-4.  Back to cited text no. 34
    
35.
Pettiford BL, Schuchert MJ, Jeyabalan G, Landreneau JP, Awais O, Kent MS, et al. Technical challenges and utility of anterior exposure for thoracic spine pathology. Ann Thorac Surg 2008;86:1762-8.  Back to cited text no. 35
    
36.
Sasso RC, Renkens K, Hanson D, Reilly T, McGuire RA Jr, Best NM. Unstable thoracolumbar burst fractures: Anterior-only versus short-segment posterior fixation. J Spinal Disord Tech 2006;19:242–8.  Back to cited text no. 36
    
37.
Ramani PS, Singhania BK, Murthy G. Combined anterior and posterior decompression and short segment fixation for unstable burst fractures in the dorso lumbar region. Neurol India 2002;50:272-8.  Back to cited text no. 37
[PUBMED]  [Full text]  
38.
Burns BH. An operation for spondylolisthesis. Lancet 1993;1:1233-9.  Back to cited text no. 38
    
39.
Wiggins GC, Mirza S, Bellabarba C, West GA, Chapman JR, Shaffrey CI. Perioperative complications with costotransversectomy and anterior approaches to thoracic and thoracolumbar tumors. Neurosurg Focus 2001;11:e4.  Back to cited text no. 39
    
40.
Faciszewski T, Winter RB, Lonstein JE, Denis F, Johnson L. The surgical and medical perioperative complications of anterior spinal fusion surgery in the thoracic and lumbar spine in adults. A review of 1223 procedures. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1995;20:1592-9.  Back to cited text no. 40
    
41.
Flynn JC, Hoque MA. Anterior fusion of the lumbar spine. End-result study with long-term follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1997;61:1143-50.  Back to cited text no. 41
    
42.
Payer M. Unstable burst fractures of the thoracolumbar junction: Treatment by posterior bisegmental correction/fixation and staged anterior corpectomy and titanium cage implantation. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 2006;148:299–306.  Back to cited text no. 42
    
43.
Shehadi JA, Sciubba DM, Suk I, Suki D, Maldaun MV, McCutcheon IE, et al. Surgical treatment strategies and outcome in patients with breast cancer metastatic to the spine: A review of 87 patients. Eur Spine J 2007;16:1179-92.  Back to cited text no. 43
    
44.
McDonnell MF, Glassman SD, Dimar JR II, Puno RM, Johnson JR. Perioperative complications of anterior procedures on the spine. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1996;78:839–47.  Back to cited text no. 44
    
45.
McLain RF, Sparling E, Benson DR. Early failure of short- segment pedicle instrumentation for thoracolumbar fractures. A preliminary report. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1993;75:162–7.  Back to cited text no. 45
    
46.
Baker JK, Reardon PR, Reardon MJ, Heggeness MH. Vascular injury in anterior lumbar surgery. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1993;18:2227-30.  Back to cited text no. 46
    
47.
Vahldiek MJ, Panjabi MM. Stability potential of spinal instrumentations in tumor vertebral body replacement surgery. Spine 1998;23:543–50.  Back to cited text no. 47
    
48.
Khodadadyan-Klostermann C, Schaefer J, Schleicher P, Pflugmacher R, Eindorf T, Haas NP, et al. [Expandable cages: Biomechanical comparison of different cages for ventral spondylodesis in the thoracolumbar spine]. Chirurg 2004;75:694-701.  Back to cited text no. 48
    
49.
Cloward RB. The treatment of ruptured lumbar intervertebral discs by vertebral body fusion. I. Indications, operative technique, after care. J Neurosurg 1953;10:154-68.  Back to cited text no. 49
    
50.
Steffee AD, Biscup RS, Sitkowski DJ. Segmental spine plates with pedicle screw fixation. A new internal fixation device for disorders of the lumbar and thoracolumbar spine. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1986;203:45-53.  Back to cited text no. 50
    
51.
Hollowell JP, Vollmer DG, Wilson CR, Pintar FA, Yoganandan N. Biomechanical analysis of thoracolumbar interbody constructs. How important is the endplate? Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1996;21:1032-6.  Back to cited text no. 51
    
52.
Zahra B, Jodoin A, Maurais G, Parent S, Mac-Thiong JM. Treatment of thoracolumbar burst fractures by means of anterior fusion and cage. J Spinal Disord Tech 2012;25:30-7.  Back to cited text no. 52
    


    Figures

  [Figure 1], [Figure 2], [Figure 3], [Figure 4]
 
 
    Tables

  [Table 1], [Table 2]



 

Top
Print this article  Email this article
   
Online since 20th March '04
Published by Wolters Kluwer - Medknow