• Wenli Chang, Dianling Zhang, Wei Liu, Xiaodong Lian, Zhenqing Jiao, and Wei Chen.
• Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, The Third Hospital of Hebei Medical University Department of General Surgery, Hebei Youfu Hospital, Shijiazhuang Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Cangzhou People's Hospital, Cangzhou, PR China.
• Medicine (Baltimore). 2018 Jun 1; 97 (25): e11193e11193.

BackgroundThis randomized controlled trial (RCT) aimed to compare the clinical outcomes of thoracolumbar burst fractures (TLBFs) treated with open reduction and internal fixation via the posterior paraspinal muscle approach (PPMA) and the post-middle approach (PA).MethodsPatients with a traumatic single-level TLBFs (T10-L2), treated at our hospital between December 2009 and December 2014, were randomly allocated to Group A (PPMA) and Group B (PA). Sex, age, time from injury to surgery, the American Spinal Injury Association Impairment Scale score (ASIAIS), comorbidities, vertebral level, pre- and postoperative kyphotic angle (KA), visual analog scale (VAS) pain score, and the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores were included in the analysis. Operative time, intraoperative blood loss, x-ray exposure time, postoperative drainage volume, superficial infection, and occurrence of deep infection were documented. The patients were followed up at 2 weeks; 1, 3, and 6 months; 1 and 2 years; and every 6 months thereafter. Radiological assessments were performed to assess fracture union and detect potential loosening and breakage of the pedicle screws and rods at each follow-up. Postoperative VAS and ODI scores were used to evaluate the clinical outcomes.ResultsA total of 62 patients were enrolled (30 in Group A and 32 in Group B, respectively). The operative time (P < .001) and x-ray exposure time (P < .001) in Group A were significantly longer than those in Group B. However, compared to Group B, there were less intraoperative blood loss (P < .001), lower postoperative drainage volume (P < .001), lower VAS scores (2-week (P = .029), 1-month (P = .023), 3-month (P = .047), and 6-month follow-up (P = .010)), and lower ODI scores (2-week, P = .010; 1-month, P < .001; 3-month, P = .028; and 6-month follow-up, P = .033) in Group A.ConclusionsAlthough PPMA required a longer operative time and x-ray exposure time, PPMA provided several advantages over PA, including less intra-operative blood loss and lower postoperative drainage volume, and greater satisfaction with postoperative pain relief and functional improvement, than PA, especially at the 6-month follow-up after surgery. Further high-quality multicenter studies are warranted to validate our findings.

41 keywords...

hide…