Abstract
Objective: To assess the correlation between kyphosis and post-traumatic symptoms in patients undergoing conservative treatment for thoracolumbar burst fractures. Methods: A retrospective study was carried out with 36 patients meeting the inclusion criteria for this kind of fracture classified as Denis and Magerl's subtype A3 and treated with anti-gravitational casting or TLSO. The mean age of patients was 50.83 years, ranging from 13 to 83 years, being 20 male and 16 female subjects. The treatment outcome was evaluated based on the SF-36 questionnaire, on Denis scores for pain and work and Frankel clinical and neurological scale. The quantification of pain was based on the visual analogue scale for pain. The measurement of the residual kyphosis was obtained by the Cobb method at admission and at the end of the follow-up. Results: A weak positive correlation (r = 0.563; p > 0.001) was found between residual kyphosis and pain score (EVA). No correlation was found between final kyphosis and SF-36 and Denis scores (p > 0.05). Conclusion: There is no evident correlation between residual kyphosis, functional outcome and patients' symptoms.
Keywords: Spinal fractures/therapy, Spinal fractures/complications, Kyphosis, Treatment outcome
INTRODUCTION
Thoracolumbar burst fractures result from axial compression with rupture of the anterior and medial columns of the vertebral body, with retropulsion of bone fragments into the spinal canal and an increased interpedicular distance(1). This region is a common site of injury, with an incidence ranging from 10% to 45%1, 2, 3.
This type of injury is common in young individuals of productive age, resulting from high-energy trauma. It can be associated with other injuries such as fractures at other levels of the spine, the limbs, the pelvis and injuries to the chest and abdomen(4).
About 90% of all fractures of the spine occur between T11 and L4 and around 14 to 17% are classified as burst fractures. This region is sensitive to injury for three reasons: the loss of stabilization provided by the ribs and chest muscles, the transition of thoracic kyphotic curvature into lumbar lordotic curvature and changes in the orientation of joint facets from coronal in the thoracic spine to sagittal in the lumbar spine(4).
Some patients with burst fractures develop progressive mechanical instability, characterized by increased kyphosis, back pain, and neurological sequelae1, 5, 6, 7. Watson-Jones(5) considered simple treatment with bed rest for a few weeks to be inappropriate because the kyphotic deformity was progressive, leading to the mechanical instability of the spine, resulting in symptoms such as persistent local pain and early degenerative changes. He concluded that the solution would be to treat the injury as any fracture or dislocation of other regions of the body by reducing in extension and immobilization with a plaster cast until there was consolidation.
Nicoll(6) reported that the recurrence of deformity after reduction and prolonged immobilization was more common than expected and defined the comminution of the vertebral body, intervertebral disc injury, and disruption of the interspinous ligament as the most important factors for the loss of reduction. He also stated that good anatomic results were essential for a good functional outcome. Stable fractures (anterior and lateral wedging, lamina fractures above L4) were treated “functionally” with bed rest and progressive exercises, and unstable fractures (fracture-dislocation and lamina fractures below L4) with ortheses in a neutral position or the physiological position of the torso.
Unstable fractures with kyphosis > 30°, height loss > 50%, compression of the spinal canal > 50%, lesion of the posterior ligament complex and associated with neurological deficits usually present indication for surgical treatment by most authors8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17.
However, in thoracolumbar burst fractures without signs of instability and a normal neurological examination, treatment is controversial. Proponents of surgery argue that this provides a better kyphosis correction, decreases pain and future degenerative changes, prevents neurological deterioration and recurrence of the deformity, reduces immobilization, rest and hospitalization11, 13, 14. In contrast, other authors report a good functional outcome in long-term follow-up, small progression of the deformity, a low incidence of neurological deficits, lower cost and fewer complications to be the advantages of conservative treatment compared with surgical treatment2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23.
Despite the large number of publications on the conservative treatment of thoracolumbar burst fractures, most of the studies do not address or discuss the relationship between the final kyphosis and functional outcome in patients that are treated conservatively. When we look at this analysis, in general, the authors use their own questionnaires or the patient's subjective interpretation of pain, making interpretation of results difficult14, 16, 23.
The objective of this study was to observe the correlation between post-traumatic kyphosis and the function and symptoms of patients undergoing conservative treatment of thoracolumbar burst fractures.
METHODS
A retrospective, cross-sectional study was conducted at the Department of Orthopedics and Traumatology, Santa Casa de Misericórdia de São Paulo. All of the records, radiographs, and axial slices of computed tomography (CT) of patients with burst fracture of the thoracolumbar spine were collected according to the Denis criteria(1), at the Medical Records and Statistics Department (SAME, Serviço de Arquivo Médico e Estatística), admitted between 1991 and 2008. This research project was approved by the Research Ethics Committee of the Department of Orthopedics and Traumatology, Santa Casa de São Paulo.
The patients included in this study had burst fractures according to the Denis criteria and the Magerl classification, subtype A3(24), with a time of injury less than 10 days prior to admission, affecting a single vertebra, without neurological impairment, with at least six months follow-up with conservative treatment, had been placed in a antigravitational plaster cast or a thoracolumbosacral orthosis (TLSO), and responded to the call for clinical re-evaluation through questionnaires and radiographs.
Exclusion criteria were fractures in two or more vertebrae, incomplete documentation (medical records, radiography, and CT), not responding to the call and having a pathological fracture, victims of gunshot injury, or with neurological deficits. We also excluded patients who were admitted more than 10 days after the date of the fracture (late fractures).
Patients were evaluated based on the Short-Form 36 quality of life questionnaire (SF-36)(25), using the validated Portuguese version. The Denis pain and work scales(1) were also used (Tables 1 and 2) and the neurological clinical status was evaluated according to the Frankel classification(26) (Table 3).
Table 1.
Functional pain scale according to Denis(1).
| Score | Pain scale criterion |
|---|---|
| 1 | No pain |
| 2 | Slight pain with no need for medication |
| 3 | Moderate pain with a need for occasional medication |
| 4 | Moderate to severe pain with a need for frequent medication |
| 5 | Severe pain and a chronic need for medication |
Source: Translated from Denis F.(1)
Table 2.
Denis functional work scale(1)
| Score | Work scale criterion |
|---|---|
| 1 | Returned to hard labor |
| 2 | Returned to sedentary work, without lifting restrictions |
| 3 | Returned to work, but changed work activities |
| 4 | Returned to work, reduced to part-time |
| 5 | Incapable of working |
Source: Translated from Denis F.(1)
Table 3.
Frankel classification(26).
| Classification | Motricity | Sensitivity |
|---|---|---|
| A | Absent | Absent |
| B | Absent | Present |
| C | Present, not useful | Present |
| D | Present, useful | Present |
| E | Normal | Normal |
Source: Translated from Frankel HL et al.(26)
The measurement of kyphosis was performed according to the Cobb method(27) upon admission to the hospital and at the end of treatment. The percentage of involvement of the spinal canal was measured on CT with millimetric ruler, according to the method described by Trafton and Boyd(28), using as normal value the average of the adjacent vertebrae.
A significance level of 5% was considered for the statistical analysis of this study. We used SPSS (Statistical Package for Social Sciences) version 13.0 to obtain the results.
Spearman correlation analysis was applied in order to ascertain the degree of relationship between the variables of interest, when studied in pairs. A further assessment was also carried out in the subgroup of patients with severe deformity (final kyphosis > 30°), in which we compared the means of the SF-36, Denis pain scale, and Denis work scale with the rest of the study population, using the Mann-Whitney test. We used the Wilcoxon test to determine the difference between the initial and final kyphosis during follow-up (Table 4).
Table 4.
Correlation between final kyphosis and pain score, SF-36, and the Denis pain and work scales(1).
| Variable/final kyphosis | Correlation coefficient | P |
|---|---|---|
| Pain score | 0.563 | < 0.001* |
| SF-36 | -0.120 | 0.484 |
| Denis pain | 0.149 | 0.386 |
| Denis work | 0.281 | 0.097 |
Thirty-six patients met the inclusion criteria for this sample. The average age of patients was 50.83 years, with a minimum of 13 and maximum of 83 years; 20 were male and 16 female. The mechanism of injury was fall from a height for 24 patients, automobile accident for five, falling from standing height in five cases, and being buried by a landslide in one case. As for the fractured vertebra, we observed the T11 in one case, T12 in seven cases, L1 in 15 patients, L2 in 11 patients, and two at L3. All patients were without neurologic impairment at admission (Frankel E). The mean follow-up was 66.38 months, ranging from 13 to 185 months. The involvement of the spinal canal averaged 19.25%, ranging from 5 to 60%.
RESULTS
The mean initial kyphosis in the radiographic evaluation was 12.16°, ranging from 0 to 40° and the mean final kyphosis was 13.41°, ranging from 0 to 45°. There was no significant difference between the initial Cobb values and those at the end of treatment (12.1 vs. 13.4, p < 0.05). The difference of these values ranged from −11 to 45°, with an average of 1.38° (Table 5). All patients presented no neurological deficit (Frankel E) at the last examination (Figure 1).
Table 5.
Correlation between final kyphosis and subdivisions of the SF-36(25).
| Variable/final kyphosis | Correlation coefficient | P |
|---|---|---|
| Functional capacity | -0.195 | 0.253 |
| Physical aspects | -0.180 | 0294 |
| Pain | 0.126 | 0.463 |
| General health status | 0.014 | 0.936 |
| Vigor | 0.060 | 0.728 |
| Social aspects | -0.055 | 0.751 |
| Emotional aspects | 0.140 | 0.415 |
| Mental health | 0.032 | 0.852 |
Figure 1.
A) Burst fracture of the first lumbar vertebra. B) Note the fragmentation of the vertebral body on the CT with reconstruction. C) Improved thoracolumbar alignment after plaster casting in hyperextension. D) Despite the loss of correction, the patient. is asymptomatic.
In relation to pain, five patients were pain free, 15 had mild pain, 13 had moderate pain, and three had severe pain. As for work, 12 patients returned to hard labor, 10 returned to sedentary work, eight changed activities, one returned part-time, and five were unable to work.
There was positive correlation (p > 0.05, r = 0.563) between the final kyphosis and pain score (VAS), although this correlation was weak (Figure 2). There was no correlation between the final kyphosis and the score on the SF-36 questionnaires and the Denis scales, including their subdivisions (Table 6).
Figure 2.
Correlation between the VAS and final kyphosis.
Table 6.
Correlation between final kyphosis and subdivisions of the SF-36(25).
| Variable/final kyphosis | Correlation coefficient | P |
|---|---|---|
| Functional capacity | -0.195 | 0253 |
| Physical aspects | -0.180 | 0294 |
| Pain | 0.126 | 0.463 |
| General health status | 0.014 | 0.936 |
| Vigor | 0.060 | 0.728 |
| Social aspects | -0.055 | 0.751 |
| Emotional aspects | 0.140 | 0.415 |
| Mental health | 0.032 | 0.852 |
There was no difference between the mean scores of the SF-36 questionnaires (p = 0.450), the Denis pain scale (p = 0.142), and the Denis work scale (p = 0.081) in patients with kyphosis greater than or equal to 30° (five patients) or less than 30° (31 patients).
DISCUSSION
Treatment of thoracolumbar burst fractures is a controversial topic. One of the arguments in favor of conservative treatment is the thesis of a reduced risk of patients developing post-traumatic painful kyphosis1, 5, 6, 7, 29. We found that the evaluation of conservative treatment is usually performed based on radiographic criteria. Moreover, most studies do not assess functional outcomes with cross-culturally validated scales. Some case series do not suggest a correlation between post-traumatic kyphosis and symptoms after conservative treatment of these fractures; however, many studies have small numbers of patients, subjective evaluation criteria, or do not consider Magerl subtypes(24) in their patients (Tables 1 and 2)8, 14, 16, 23). In addition, some authors have suggested that kyphosis above 30° would indicate worse functional outcomes and, therefore, would indicate operative treatment9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 29, but we observed a lack of separate assessment in this group of patients submitted to conservative treatment. Gertzbein(29), with a multicenter series of 641 patients, associated kyphosis with pain; however, the evaluated group was heterogeneous (545 operated patients), and patients with kyphosis above 30° were not evaluated separately.
Chart 1.
Distribution of patients with thoracolumbar burst fractures admitted into SCMSP between 1991 and 2008.
| Patient | Sex | Age | Trauma | Level | Months | Initial kyphosis | Final kyphosis | Progression of deformity | VAS | SF-36 | Denis pain | Denis work |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | F | 63 | Fall from a height | L2 | 121 | 13 | 2 | -9 | 8 | 86 | 5 | 3 |
| 2 | F | 68 | Fall from a height | L1 | 70 | 7 | 10 | 3 | 8 | 98 | 4 | 2 |
| 3 | M | 30 | Automobile accident | T12 | 46 | 10 | 9 | -1 | 3 | 98 | 2 | 1 |
| 4 | M | 56 | Fall from a height | L3 | 35 | 3 | 6 | 3 | 3 | 98 | 2 | 1 |
| 5 | M | 63 | Fall from a height | L2 | 52 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 89 | 2 | 1 |
| 6 | M | 75 | Automobile accident | L2 | 60 | 3 | 0 | -3 | 2 | 79 | 2 | 2 |
| 7 | F | 65 | Fall from a height | L1 | 120 | 9 | 18 | 9 | 6 | 83 | 4 | 3 |
| 8 | F | 38 | Fall from a height | T12 | 114 | 12 | 15 | 3 | 6 | 84 | 1 | 2 |
| 9 | F | 53 | Fall from a height | L2 | 106 | 14 | 10 | -4 | 5 | 85 | 3 | 2 |
| 10 | M | 35 | Fall from a height | T12 | 42 | 10 | 3 | -7 | 0 | 81 | 1 | 1 |
| 11 | F | 59 | Fall from a height | T12 | 185 | 22 | 11 | -11 | 0 | 98 | 2 | 3 |
| 12 | F | 50 | Automobile accident | L1 | 128 | 1 | 4 | 3 | 0 | 99 | 5 | 2 |
| 13 | F | 57 | Crushing | L1 | 66 | 10 | 15 | 5 | 8 | 99 | 1 | 3 |
| 14 | M | 41 | Fall from a height | L1 | 51 | 20 | 22 | 2 | 6 | 82 | 3 | 1 |
| 15 | F | 28 | Fall from a height | L2 | 45 | 10 | 2 | -8 | 0 | 100 | 4 | 4 |
| 16 | M | 83 | Fall from a height | L1 | 39 | 3 | 5 | 2 | 0 | 100 | 4 | 5 |
| 17 | F | 49 | Fall from a height | L2 | 47 | 40 | 32 | -8 | 3 | 100 | 3 | 2 |
| 18 | M | 13 | Automobile accident | L1 | 14 | 3 | 2 | -1 | 0 | 100 | 1 | 1 |
| 19 | M | 31 | Fall from a height | L2 | 13 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 100 | 2 | 2 |
| 20 | M | 60 | Fall from a height | L1 | 50 | 10 | 16 | 6 | 4 | 90 | 2 | 5 |
| 21 | F | 74 | Fall from a height | L2 | 28 | 4 | 20 | 16 | 8 | 87 | 3 | 3 |
| 22 | F | 56 | Fall from a height | T12 | 100 | 32 | 45 | 13 | 8 | 93 | 4 | 3 |
| 23 | M | 51 | Fall from a height | T12 | 30 | 8 | 8 | 0 | 4 | 84 | 2 | 2 |
| 24 | M | 51 | Fall from a height | L1 | 70 | 10 | 10 | 0 | 4 | 98 | 2 | 2 |
| 25 | M | 44 | Fall from a height | L1 | 66 | 26 | 32 | 6 | 8 | 68 | 4 | 3 |
| 26 | M | 50 | Fall from a height | L3 | 48 | 4 | 10 | 6 | 1 | 95 | 2 | 1 |
| 27 | F | 48 | Fall from standing height | T12 | 31 | 16 | 22 | 6 | 5 | 89 | 3 | 2 |
| 28 | M | 70 | Fall from standing height | L1 | 96 | 10 | 16 | 6 | 8 | 84 | 2 | 5 |
| 29 | M | 36 | Fall from a height | L1 | 96 | 36 | 30 | -6 | 2 | 100 | 2 | 5 |
| 30 | M | 35 | Fall from a height | L1 | 36 | 6 | 12 | 6 | 4 | 90 | 2 | 1 |
| 31 | F | 73 | Fall from standing height | L1 | 36 | 12 | 12 | 0 | 6 | 90 | 1 | 1 |
| 32 | F | 70 | Fall from standing height | L1 | 62 | 8 | 12 | 4 | 5 | 100 | 2 | 1 |
| 33 | M | 51 | Fall from a height | L2 | 93 | 10 | 10 | 0 | 8 | 89 | 3 | 5 |
| 34 | F | 29 | Fall from a height | T11 | 25 | 30 | 36 | 6 | 5 | 96 | 3 | 3 |
| 35 | M | 40 | Fall from a height | L2 | 60 | 10 | 10 | 0 | 2 | 96 | 2 | 1 |
| 36 | M | 35 | Automobile accident | L2 | 109 | 16 | 12 | -4 | 4 | 90 | 3 | 1 |
Legend: Age-years; M-male; F-female.
Chart 2.
Case series of thoracolumbar burst fractures.
| Author | Initial Cobb | Final Cobb | N | Questionnaire used | Type of study |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Weinstein16 | 26.4° | 16.8° | 42 | VAS, pain scale, own functional questionnaire | Retrospective |
| Avanzi8 | 11.1° | 12.7° | 17 | Pain scale, Denis | Retrospective |
| Cantor14 | 19° | 20° | 33 | Denis, own functional questionnaire | Prospective |
| Mumford23 | 16.24° | 20.12° | 41 | VAS, Roland & Morris, function-activities of daily living questionnaire | Prospective |
| Chow22 | 5.3° | 7.6° | 24 | Denis modified (pain), own functional questionnaire | Retrospective |
| Shen21 | 20° | 24° | 38 | Denis | Retrospective |
| Gertzbein27 | 12.4° | 13.9° | 96 | Function-Frankel, Motor Score Index, (pain) questionnaire based on the use of medication | Prospective |
In contrast to the findings of Weinstein et al.(16) and Mumford et al.(23), we observed a correlation between the VAS score and the final kyphosis. But it is noteworthy that this correlation was weak. This assessment tool, which goes from 0 to 10, compared with Denis scales ranging from 1 to 5, can facilitate the numerical analysis of statistical estimation of pain in these patients. Future studies with larger series of cases may show a tendency that has not been observed in current studies with fewer patients.
To assess the quality of life and pain of the patients in our study, we used the Short-Form 36 questionnaires and the VAS scale. These instruments have been validated for use in Brazil and are invaluable for the analysis of patient-centered treatment outcome, based not just on radiographic criteria. Similar to our findings, no correlation was evident between kyphosis and symptoms or function in the spine after the conservative treatment in the case series reviewed16, 22, 23.
To compare with our findings of 86.1% return to work activities, Mumford et al.(23) found that 90.3% of patients returned to work in a prospective study of 41 patients treated conservatively, with an average of two years follow-up. Other studies8, 14, 16, 21, 22 showed values from 75 to 95%.
The pattern of results in relation to pain in this series is consistent with those found in the literature. Of the 33 patients studied by Cantor et al.(14), 18 (65%) had some degree of pain from the fracture, and in this series 61% of patients reported residual pain.
The mean progression of the deformity is discussed, however, there has been no statistical analysis more detailed of this finding. We found an average of 1.38° of deformity progression, but the findings had no statistical significance. This suggests that the kyphosis at the end of follow-up is similar to that found in the initial radiograph. Another advantage of this study is its focus on A3 subtype fractures. Most authors only consider the Denis classification based on the CT image, which in more detailed assessment may have components of Magerl subtypes A, B, or C(24), with different biomechanical characteristics.
Another issue to be discussed is the separate evaluation of the group of patients with kyphosis greater than 30°, which some authors consider to be a criterion for surgery due to the possibility of developing post-traumatic painful kyphosis. Despite this opinion, there is no objective assessment of this group of patients treated conservatively in the studies reviewed1, 5, 6, 7, 30. There were no worse functional outcomes in these patients; however, we must emphasize that the small number of cases (five) can hamper the final statistical analysis. Studies with a special focus on these patients should be performed.
The limitations observed in this study were its retrospective quality, with its inherent difficulty in monitoring the variables that may confound the findings-adherence to the use of orthoses, financial compensation, and other comorbidities-and the lack of a control group for comparison with operated patients. Other study designs should be made to improve the level of evidence of these results. However, the lack of these studies makes the case series study important.
CONCLUSION
There was no obvious correlation between post-traumatic kyphosis and progression of the deformity with the patient's pain after the conservative treatment of patients with a thoracolumbar burst fracture, Denis subtype A3, without neurological damage.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We thank the Center for Publication Support of the School of Medical Sciences of Santa Casa de São Paulo (NAP-SC) for their technical and scientific support to the publication of this manuscript.
REFERENCES
- 1.Denis F. The three column spine and its significance in the classification of acute thoracolumbar spinal injuries. Spine. 1983;8(8):817–831. doi: 10.1097/00007632-198311000-00003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.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(8):541–544. doi: 10.1097/00005131-199611000-00006. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Thomas KC, Bailey CS, Dvorak MF, Kwon B, Fisher C. Comparison of operative and nonoperative treatment for thoracolumbar burst fractures in patients without neurological deficit: a systematic review. J Neurosurg Spine. 2006;4(5):351–358. doi: 10.3171/spi.2006.4.5.351. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Knight RQ, Stornelli DP, Chan DP, Devanny JR, Jackson KV. Comparison of operative versus nonoperative treatment of lumbar burst fractures. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1993;(293):213–221. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Watson Jones R. Manipulative reduction of crush fractures of the spine. Br Med J. 1931;1(3659):300–302. doi: 10.1136/bmj.1.3659.300. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Nicoll EA. Fractures of the dorso-lumbar spine. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1949;31B(3):376–394. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Holdsworth F. Fractures, dislocations and fracture-dislocations of the spine. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1970;52(8):1534–1551. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Avanzi O, Chih LY, Meves R, Caffaro MFS, Bueno RS, Freitas MMF. Fratura toracolombar tipo explosão: resultados do tratamento conservador. Rev Bras Ortop. 2006;41(4):109–115. [Google Scholar]
- 9.Tezer M, Erturer RE, Ozturk C, Ozturk I, Kuzgun U. Conservative treatment of fractures of the thoracolumbar spine. Int Orthop. 2005;29(2):78–82. doi: 10.1007/s00264-004-0619-1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Tropiano P, Huang RC, Louis CA, Poitout DG, Louis RP. Functional and radiographic outcome of thoracolumbar and lumbar burst fractures managed by closed orthopaedic reduction and casting. Spine. 2003;28(21):2459–2465. doi: 10.1097/01.BRS.0000090834.36061.DD. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Shen WJ, Liu TJ, Shen YS. Nonoperative treatment verus posterior fixation for thoracolumbar junction burst fractures without neurologic deficit. Spine. 2001;26(9):1038–1045. doi: 10.1097/00007632-200105010-00010. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Hitchon PW, Torner JC, Haddad SF, Follett KA. Management options in thoracolumbar burst fractures. Surg Neurol. 1998;49(6):619–627. doi: 10.1016/s0090-3019(97)00527-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Domenicucci M, Preite R, Ramieri A, Ciappetta P, Delfini R, Romanini L. Thoracolumbar fractures without neurosurgical involvement: surgical or conservative treatment? J Neurosurg Sci. 1996;40(1):1–10. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Cantor JB, Lebwohl NH, Garvey T, Eismont FJ. Nonoperative management of stable thoracolumbar burst fractures with early ambulation and bracing. Spine. 1993;18(8):971–976. doi: 10.1097/00007632-199306150-00004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Reid DC, Hu R, Davis LA, Saboe LA. The nonoperative treatment of burst fractures of the thoracolumbar junction. J Trauma. 1988;28(8):1188–1194. doi: 10.1097/00005373-198808000-00009. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Weinstein JN, Collalto P, Lehmann TR. Thoracolumbar burst fractures treated conservatively: a long-term follow-up. Spine. 1988;13(1):33–38. doi: 10.1097/00007632-198801000-00008. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.McEvoy RD, Bradfort DS. The management of burst fractures of the thoracic and lumbar spine. Experience in 53 patients. Spine. 1985;10(7):631–637. doi: 10.1097/00007632-198509000-00007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Moller A, Hasserius R, Redlund-Johnell I, Ohlin A, Karlsson MK. Nonoperative treated burst fractures of the thoracic and lumbar spine in adults: a 23 to 41 year follow-up. Spine J. 2007;7(6):701–707. doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2006.09.009. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Agus H, Kayali C, Arslantas M. Nonoperative treatment of burst-type thoracolumbar vertebra fractures: clinical and radiological results of 29 patients. Eur Spine J. 2005;14(6):536–540. doi: 10.1007/s00586-004-0740-2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Wood K, Buttermann G, Mehbod A, Garvey T, Jhanjee R, Sechriest V. Operative compared with nonoperative treatment of a thoracolumbar burst fracture without neurological deficit. A prospective, randomized study. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2003;85A(5):773–781. doi: 10.2106/00004623-200305000-00001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Shen WJ, Shen YS. Nonsurgical treatment of three-column thoracolumbar junction burst fractures without neurologic deficit. Spine. 1999;24(4):412–415. doi: 10.1097/00007632-199902150-00024. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Chow GH, Nelson BJ, Gebhard JS, Brogman JL, Brown CW, Donaldson DH. Functional outcome of thoracolumbar burst fractures managed with hyperextension casting or bracing and early mobilization. Spine. 1996;21(18):2170–2175. doi: 10.1097/00007632-199609150-00022. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Mumford J, Weinstein JN, Spratt KF, Goel VK. Thoracolumbar burst fractures. The clinical efficacy and outcome of nonoperative managment. Spine. 1993;18(8):955–970. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Magerl F, Aebi M, Gertzbein SD, Harms J, Nazarian S. A comprehensive classification of thoracic and lumbar injuries. Eur Spine J. 1994;3(4):184–201. doi: 10.1007/BF02221591. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Ware JE, Jr, Sherbourne CD. The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care. 1992;30(6):473–483. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Frankel HL, Hancock DO, Hyslop G, Melzak J, Michaelis LS, Ungar GH. The value of postural reduction in the initial management of closed injuries of the spine with paraplegia and tetraplegia. I. Paraplegia. 1969;7(3):179–192. doi: 10.1038/sc.1969.30. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Harrison DE, Cailliet R, Harrison DD, Janik TJ, Holland B. Reliability of centroid, Cobb, and Harrison posterior tangent methods: which to choose for analysis of thoracic kyphosis. Spine. 2001;26(11):E227–E234. doi: 10.1097/00007632-200106010-00002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Trafton PG, Boyd CA., Jr Computed tomography of thoracic and lumbar spine injuries. J Trauma. 1984;24(6):506–515. doi: 10.1097/00005373-198406000-00008. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Gertzbein SD. Scoliosis Research Society: multicenter spine fracture study. Spine. 1992;17(5):528–540. doi: 10.1097/00007632-199205000-00010. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30.Million R, Hall W, Nilsen KH, Baker RD, Jayson MIV. Assessment of the progress of the back pain patient. Spine. 1982;7:204–212. doi: 10.1097/00007632-198205000-00004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]