International Orthopaedics

, Volume 43, Issue 1, pp 169–176 | Cite as

Indications for the monosegmental stabilization of thoraco-lumbar spine fractures

  • Giovanni Andrea La Maida
  • Carlo Ruosi
  • Bernardo Misaggi
Original Paper



To evaluate the efficacy and to underline the right indications of the posterior monosegmental stabilization for the treatment of thoraco-lumbar spine fractures.


Twenty patients underwent a monosegmental stabilization at our Institution and were retrospectively reviewed with a minimum follow-up of two years. All the patients had a clinical and radiological assessment before, after the surgery and at final follow-up. All data were evaluated by one independent observer. Data collected were Denis pain and work scale, somatic kyphosis (SK), somatic height (SH), and compression percentage (CP).


The mean pre-operative SK angle measured between the upper and lower end plate of the fractured vertebra was 23.6°. The mean SK immediately after surgery was 12.8° and at final follow-up was 13.9°. The mean pre-operative SH was 21.9 mm, the mean value after surgery was 26.5 mm, and at final follow-up was 24.8 mm. The mean pre-operative CP was 66.7%, the mean value after surgery was 80.9%, and at final follow-up was 75.3%. At final follow-up, 75% of the patients had no pain or moderate pain and 95% of the patients returned to a full time work.


Monosegmental stabilization with fusion is a safe and effective method to treat well selected thoracolumbar spine fractures. The right indications are type A1, type B2, and type A3 with a load sharing of less than 7 points and some very well selected type C fractures in which there is not lateral and rotatory displacement.


Monosegmental stabilization Pedicle fixation Posterior approach Thoraco-lumbar fractures Spine fractures 


Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies which need ethical approval.


  1. 1.
    Defino HL, Scarparo P (2005) Fractures of thoracolumbar spine: monosegmental fixation. Injury 36:B90–B97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Liu S, Li H, Liang C et al (2009) Monosegmental transpedicular fixation for selected patients with thoracolumbar burst fractures. J Spinal Disord Tech Vol 22:38–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ibrahim FM, Abd EL-rady M (2016). Mono segmental fixation of selected types of thoracic and lumbar fractures: a prospective study. Int Orthop 40: 1083–1089Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Vaccaro AR, Oner C, Kepler CK et al. (2013). AO spine thoracolumbar spine injury classification system. Spine Vol.38, n° 23, pp 2028–2037Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    McCormak T, Karaikovic E, Gaines RW (1994) The load shearing classification of spine fractures. Spine 19(15):1741–1744CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Denis F, Armstrong GW, Searles K et al (1984) Acute thoracolumbar burst fractures in the absence of neurological deficit: a comparison between operative and nonoperative treatment. Clin Orthop Relat Res 189:142–149Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Wood K, Buttermann G, Mehbod A et al (2003) Operative compared with nonoperative treatment of a thoracolumbar burst fracture without neurological deficit. A prospective, randomized study. J Bone Joint Surg Am 85:773–781CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Assaker R (2004) Minimal access spinal technologies: state of the art, indications and techniques. Joint Bone Spine 71:459–469CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Sun XY, Zhang XN, Hai Y (2017) Percutaneous versus traditional and paraspinal posterior open approaches for treatment of thoraco-lumbar fractures without neurologic deficit: a meta-analysis. Eur Spine J 26:1418–1431CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Wei FX, Liu SY, Liang CX et al. (2010). Transpedicular fixation in management of thoracolumbar burst fractures. Monosegmental fixation versus short segment instrumentation. Spine, Vol 35, n°15: pp E714-E720Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    La Maida GA, Luceri F, Ferraro M et al (2016) Monosegmental vs bisegmental pedicle fixation for the treatment of thoracolumbar spine fractures. Injury 47S:S35–S43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Parker JW, Lane JR, Karaikovic E et al (2000) Successful short-segment instrumentation and fusion for thoracolumbar spine fractures: a consecutive 41/2 years series. Spine 25(9):1157–1170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lyu J, Chen K, Tang Z et al (2016) A comparison of three different surgical procedures in the treatment of type A thoracolumbar fractures: a randomized controlled trial. Int Orthop 40(6):1233–1238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Andrei D, Popa I, Brad S et al (2017) The variability of vertebral body volume and pain associated with osteoporotic vertebral fractures: conservative treatment versus percutaneous transpedicular vertebroblasty. Int Orthop 41(5):963–968CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Katsumi K, Hirano T, Watanabe K et al (2016) Surgical treatment for osteoporotic thoracolumbar vertebral collapse using vertebroplasty with posterior spinal fusion: a prospective multicenter study. Int Orthop 40(11):2309–2315CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© SICOT aisbl 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Spine Surgery DepartmentOrthopaedic Institute Gaetano Pini – CTOMilanItaly
  2. 2.University of Naples – Federico IINaplesItaly

Personalised recommendations