Literature DB >> 23053588

The complement of the load-sharing classification for the thoracolumbar injury classification system in managing thoracolumbar burst fractures.

Masaaki Machino1, Yasutsugu Yukawa, Keigo Ito, Shunsuke Kanbara, Fumihiko Kato.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The classification and therapeutic strategy for thoracolumbar burst fractures are controversial. The load-sharing classification (LSC) and thoracolumbar injury classification system (TLICS) are both quantitative evaluation systems for thoracolumbar burst fractures. We hypothesized that their combination would be helpful not only for surgical indications but also for deciding on the surgical approach. However, no reports have evaluated the relationship between them. The purpose of this study was to clarify the relationship between the LSC and TLICS and investigate the clinical usefulness of their combination.
METHODS: This study included 100 consecutive patients surgically treated for thoracolumbar burst fractures (71 men and 29 women; mean age 36 years). Clinical and radiographical data as well as thoracolumbar injury classification systems were evaluated.
RESULTS: LSC and TLICS scores were found to be statistically correlated. The mean LSC score with a TLICS score of 5 or more (surgical treatment recommended) was 7.3 ± 1.2 points, and the mean LSC score with a TLICS score of 3 or less (conservative treatment recommended) was 6.1 ± 1.3 points. The mean TLICS score with an LSC score of 7 or more (additional anterior reconstruction recommended) was 6.6 ± 2.7 points, and the mean TLICS score with an LSC score of 6 or less (expectation of good clinical results with posterior short fusion) was 5.0 ± 2.5 points. The TLICS score was 3 or less, and the LSC score was 7 or more in 13 patients (13 %).
CONCLUSION: Although the TLICS scores correlated with the LSC scores, a single application of TLICS might not be sufficient to identify those patients who have a TLICS score of 3 or less and an LSC score of 7 or more as surgically indicated. However, an additional LSC evaluation avoided deviations as the two classifications complemented each other, and it was useful in determining the best treatment options for thoracolumbar burst fractures.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 23053588     DOI: 10.1007/s00776-012-0319-4

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Orthop Sci        ISSN: 0949-2658            Impact factor:   1.601


  6 in total

1.  Letter to the Editor concerning "The surgical algorithm for the AOSpine thoracolumbar spine injury classification system" by A. R. Vaccaro et al. Eur Spine J (2016);25(4):1087-1094.

Authors:  Andrea Piazzolla; Giuseppe Solarino; Biagio Moretti
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2017-06-09       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 2.  A simplified treatment algorithm for treating thoracic and lumbar spine trauma.

Authors:  Andrei F Joaquim; Alpesh A Patel; Gregory D Schroeder; Alexander R Vaccaro
Journal:  J Spinal Cord Med       Date:  2018-02-07       Impact factor: 1.985

3.  Assessment of load-sharing thoracolumbar injury: A modified scoring system.

Authors:  Qi-Hang Su; Yong-Chao Li; Yan Zhang; Jun Tan; Biao Cheng
Journal:  World J Clin Cases       Date:  2020-11-06       Impact factor: 1.337

4.  Classification and Radiological Diagnosis of Thoracolumbar Spine Fractures: WFNS Spine Committee Recommendations.

Authors:  Abdul Hafid Bajamal; Khrisna Rangga Permana; Muhammad Faris; Mehmet Zileli; Nikolay A Peev
Journal:  Neurospine       Date:  2021-12-31

Review 5.  Thoracolumbar Injury Classification and Injury Severity Score System: A Literature Review of Its Safety.

Authors:  Andrei Fernandes Joaquim; Dhiego Chaves de Almeida Bastos; Hélio Henrique Jorge Torres; Alpesh A Patel
Journal:  Global Spine J       Date:  2015-06-05

6.  Analysis and improvement of the three-column spinal theory.

Authors:  Qihang Su; Cong Li; Yongchao Li; Zifei Zhou; Shuiqiang Zhang; Song Guo; Xiaofei Feng; Meijun Yan; Yan Zhang; Jinbiao Zhang; Jie Pan; Biao Cheng; Jun Tan
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2020-08-12       Impact factor: 2.362

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.