Table 1.

Patient demographics and fracture classification

Variable	Author (year)
	Been and Bouma [5] (1999)	Briem et al. [6] (2004)	Danisa et al. [7] (1995)	Mayer et al. [8] (2017)	Schmid et al. [9] (2012)
Study design	Retrospective Cohort	Retrospective Cohort	Retrospective Cohort	Retrospective Cohort	Retrospective Cohort
Total no. of patients	46	20	33	36	35
No. of each group	AP, 27; post, 19	AP, 10; post, 10	AP, 6; post, 27	AP, 14; post, 22	AP, 14; post, 21
Age (yr)	AP, 26.8±8.6; post, 33.7±13.1	AP, 63.00±49.6; post, 59.0±48.2	AP, 36.8 (13–63); post, 37.7 (19–75)	AP, 34±10.6; post, 42.0±14	AP, 39.3±13.5; post, 32.7±11.3
Gender (% female)	AP, 44.4%; post, 42.1%	AP, 60.0%; post, 60.0%	AP, 33.3%; post, 29.6%	AP, 28.6%; post, 50.0%	AP, 23.81%; post, 42.86%
Fr acture classification and typing (no. of patients)	Denis burst fractures only: Denis type A (12/46); Denis type B (20/46); Denis type C (0/46); Denis type D (14/46); Denis type E (0/46)	Magerl type 3 fractures only: Magerl 3.1 (13/20); Magerl 3.2 (5/20); Magerl 3.3 (2/20)	Denis burst fractures only: Denis type A (21/33); Denis type B (10/33); Denis type C (2/33)	Magerl type 3 fractures only: (36/36)	Magerl type 3 fractures only: (35/35)
Neurological status	Intact and non-intact	Intact only	Intact and non-intact	Intact only	Intact only
Ra tionale for approach	The choice for either type of surgical approach was not randomized, but was decided by the surgeon based on availability of instrumentation and the presence of severe other organ injuries.	Not reported	The surgical procedure performed were determined by each individual’s attending physician.	The decision of treatment was according to the attending surgeons’ discretion.	The patients were treated according to the surgeon’s preferences in a single university-based trauma center.

Values are presented as number, mean±standard deviation, or mean (range).

AP, anterior-posterior; post, posterior.