COMPARATIVE STUDY
JOURNAL ARTICLE
RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL
Add like
Add dislike
Add to saved papers

Posterior paraspinal muscle versus post-middle approach for the treatment of thoracolumbar burst fractures: A randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: This 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).

METHODS: Patients 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.

RESULTS: A 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.

CONCLUSIONS: Although 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.

Full text links

We have located links that may give you full text access.
Can't access the paper?
Try logging in through your university/institutional subscription. For a smoother one-click institutional access experience, please use our mobile app.

Related Resources

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

Mobile app image

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.

By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.

Your Privacy Choices Toggle icon

You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app