• J Kitzen, W M Bakker, E Jacobs, M T Kuijper, and F C Öner.
• Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Maasstad Medical Centre, P.O. Box 9100, Rotterdam 3007 AC, the Netherlands. Electronic address: KitzenJ@maasstadziekenhuis.nl.
• Injury. 2024 Mar 1; 55 (3): 111389111389.

IntroductionLess invasive spine surgery (LISS) has become well-established for thoracolumbar burst fractures without neurological deficits. However, notable controversy persists regarding the adequacy of LISS for more unstable AO type B and C injuries, as it does not allow for formal open fusion.Materials And MethodsIn this cross-sectional survey experienced spine surgeons of the Dutch Spine Society were invited to participate (56 participants). They were asked to indicate the most appropriate treatment for AO type B1, B2 (L1: A1 and L1: A3), B3 and C (L1: A4) injuries at level Th12-L1. Taking into account: age, AO N0-N1, or polytrauma. Specific agreement between participants was obtained applying Variation Ratio (VR).ResultsA significant level of overall agreement was observed for AO type-B1 injuries with 73.8% of participants opting for percutaneous short-segment fixation (VR 0.775). For AO type-B3 injuries, 79.4% of participants favored percutaneous long-segment fixation (VR 0.794). for AO type-B2 injuries, there was less overall agreement (VR 0.571-0.657). Nonetheless, when considering all AO type-B injuries combined, percutaneous fixation emerged as the most preferred treatment option with substantial agreement (VR 0.871-0.923). Conversely, for AO type-C injuries, there was less agreement among the participants (VI 0.411), 26.5% of them chose additional open spinal fusion.ConclusionFor all AO type-B injuries there was substantial agreement to treat these fractures with percutaneous techniques. For AO type-C injuries, the survey results do not support a consensus. Nevertheless, the responses raise important questions about the necessity of spinal fusion for such injuries.Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

26 keywords...

hide…