Advertisement

Clinical and radiological outcomes in thoracolumbar fractures using the SpineJack device. A prospective study of seventy-four patients with a two point three year mean of follow-up

  • Gael Kerschbaumer
  • Benoit Gaulin
  • Sébastien Ruatti
  • Jérôme Tonetti
  • Mehdi BoudissaEmail author
Original Paper
  • 1 Downloads

Abstract

Purpose

The aim of this study was to assess clinical and radiological results of SpineJack on the treatment of vertebral body fractures in a continuous prospective series of patients.

Material and methods

Between May 2012 and April 2015, all patients operated using the SpineJack device were prospectively included in this monocentric study. Demographic data, clinical, and radiological results were recorded. Complications and surgical managements were recorded.

Results

At a mean follow-up of 2.3 years, 74 patients with 77 fractured vertebrae were included. The stand-alone SpineJack group comprised 60 patients with 63 fractured vertebrae (group 1) and the group with additional posterior fixation 14 patients with 14 fractured vertebrae (group 2). The average initial vertebral wedge angle was 13.3 ± 6.1 degrees for group 1 and 15.3 ± 5.7 degrees for group 2 (p = 0.25). Post-operative values were 6.5 ± 4.6 degrees for group 1 and 5.1 ± 3.9 degrees for group 2 (p = 0.31). The differences within the same group were highly significant (p < 0.0005). The loss of reduction at last follow-up was 0.8 ± 1.6 degrees in group 1 and 0.6 ± 2.0 degrees in group 2 (p = 0.77). Subjective results were considered as very good or good for 57 patients (95%) in group 1 and for 11 patients (79%) in group 2, p = 0.07.

Conclusion

The SpineJack seems to be a promising tool in the treatment of traumatic vertebral fractures with a correction in the sagittal plane comparable with what can be found in the literature.

Keywords

SpineJack Vertebral augmentation Vertebral compression fracture Percutaneous surgery Sagittal correction 

Notes

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 with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

References

  1. 1.
    Scheer JK, Bakhsheshian J, Fakurnejad S, Oh T, Dahdaleh NS, Smith ZA (2015) Evidence-based medicine of traumatic thoracolumbar burst fractures: a systematic review of operative management across 20 years. Global Spine J 5:73–82.  https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0034-1396047 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Mayer M, Ortmaier R, Koller H, Koller J, Hitzl W, Auffarth A, Resch H, von Keudell A (2017) Impact of sagittal balance on clinical outcomes in surgically treated T12 and L1 burst fractures: analysis of long-term outcomes after posterior-only and combined posteroanterior treatment. Biomed Res Int 2017:1568258.  https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/1568258 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Van Meirhaeghe J, Bastian L, Boonen S, Ranstam J, Tillman JB, Wardlaw D, investigators FREE (2013) A randomized trial of balloon kyphoplasty and nonsurgical management for treating acute vertebral compression fractures: vertebral body kyphosis correction and surgical parameters. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 38:971–983.  https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e31828e8e22 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Zairi F, Court C, Tropiano P, Charles YP, Tonetti J, Fuentes S, Litrico S, Deramond H, Beaurain J, Orcel P, Delecrin J, Aebi M, Assaker R, French Society of Spine Surgery (2012) Minimally invasive management of thoraco-lumbar fractures: combined percutaneous fixation and balloon kyphoplasty. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 98:S105–S111.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.otsr.2012.06.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    McAnany SJ, Overley SC, Kim JS, Baird EO, Qureshi SA, Anderson PA (2016) Open versus minimally invasive fixation techniques for thoracolumbar trauma: a meta-analysis. Global Spine J 6:186–194.  https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0035-1554777 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ma XL, Xing D, Ma JX, Xu WG, Wang J, Chen Y (2012) Balloon kyphoplasty versus percutaneous vertebroplasty in treating osteoporotic vertebral compression fracture: grading the evidence through a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Spine J 21:1844–1859CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Papanastassiou ID, Filis A, Gerochristou MA, Vrionis FD (2014) Controversial issues in kyphoplasty and vertebroplasty in osteoporotic vertebral fractures. Biomed Res Int 2014:934206.  https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/934206 Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Garnier L, Tonetti J, Bodin A, Vouaillat H, Merloz P, Assaker R, Court C, French Society for Spine Surgery (2012) Kyphoplasty versus vertebroplasty in osteoporotic thoracolumbar spine fractures. Short-term retrospective review of a multicentre cohort of 127 consecutive patients. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 98:S112–S119.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.otsr.2012.03.018 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Wang B, Zhao CP, Song LX, Zhu L (2018) Balloon kyphoplasty versus percutaneous vertebroplasty for osteoporotic vertebral compression fracture: a meta-analysis and systematic review. J Orthop Surg Res 13:264.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s13018-018-0952-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Krüger A, Oberkircher L, Figiel J, Floßdorf F, Bolzinger F, Noriega DC, Ruchholtz S (2015) Height restoration of osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures using different intravertebral reduction devices: a cadaveric study. Spine J 15:1092–1098.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2013.06.094 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Magerl F, Aebi M, Gertzbein SD, Harms J, Nazarian S (1994) A comprehensive classification of thoracic and lumbar injuries. Eur Spine J 3:184–201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Li H, Yang L, Xie H, Yu L, Wei H, Cao X (2015) Surgical outcomes of mini-open Wiltse approach and conventional open approach in patients with single-segment thoracolumbar fractures without neurologic injury. J Biomed Res 29:76–82.  https://doi.org/10.7555/JBR.29.20140083 Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Wang XY, Dai LY, Xu HZ, Chi YL (2008) Kyphosis recurrence after posterior short-segment fixation in thoracolumbar burst fractures. J Neurosurg Spine 8:246–254.  https://doi.org/10.3171/SPI/2008/8/3/246 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Disch AC, Schmoelz W (2014) Cement augmentation in a thoracolumbar fracture model: reduction and stability after balloon kyphoplasty versus vertebral body stenting. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 39:E1147–E1153.  https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000000470 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Rotter R, Schmitt L, Gierer P, Schmitz KP, Noriega D, Mittlmeier T, Meeder PJ, Martin H (2015) Minimum cement volume required in vertebral body augmentation--a biomechanical study comparing the permanent SpineJack device and balloon kyphoplasty in traumatic fracture. Clin Biomech 30:720–725.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2015.04.015 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Baeesa SS, Krueger A, Aragón FA, Noriega DC (2015) The efficacy of a percutaneous expandable titanium device in anatomical reduction of vertebral compression fractures of the thoracolumbar spine. Saudi Med J 36:52–60.  https://doi.org/10.15537/smj.2015.1.9463 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Noriega D, Krüger A, Ardura F, Hansen-Algenstaedt N, Hassel F, Barreau X, Beyerlein J (2015) Clinical outcome after the use of a new craniocaudal expandable implant for vertebral compression fracture treatment: one year results from a prospective multicentric study. Biomed Res Int 2015:927813.  https://doi.org/10.1155/2015/927813 Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Renaud C (2015) Treatment of vertebral compression fractures with the cranio-caudal expandable implant SpineJack®: technical note and outcomes in 77 consecutive patients. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 101:857–859.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.otsr.2015.08.009 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Noriega DC, Rodrίguez-Monsalve F, Ramajo R, Sánchez-Lite I, Toribio B, Ardura F (2019) Long-term safety and clinical performance of kyphoplasty and SpineJack® procedures in the treatment of osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures: a pilot, monocentric, investigator-initiated study. Osteoporos Int 30:637–645.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-018-4773-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Muñoz Montoya JE, Torres C, Ferrer ER, Muñoz Rodríguez EE (2018) A Colombian experience involving SpineJack®, a consecutive series of patients experiencing spinal fractures, percutaneous approach and anatomical restoration 2016-2017. J Spine Surg 4:624–629.  https://doi.org/10.21037/jss.2018.07.08 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Premat K, Vande Perre S, Cormier É, Shotar E, Degos V, Morardet L, Fargeot C, Clarençon F, Chiras J (2018) Vertebral augmentation with the SpineJack® in chronic vertebral compression fractures with major kyphosis. Eur Radiol 28:4985–4991.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-018-5544-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Yue JJ, Sossan A, Selgrath C, Deutsch LS, Wilkens K, Testaiuti M, Gabriel JP (2002) The treatment of unstable thoracic spine fractures with transpedicular screw instrumentation: a 3-year consecutive series. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 27:2782–2787Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Khare S, Sharma V (2013) Surgical outcome of posterior short segment trans-pedicle screw fixation for thoracolumbar fractures. J Orthop 10:162–167.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jor.2013.09.010
  24. 24.
    McCormack T, Karaikovic E, Gaines RW (1994) The load sharing classification of spine fractures. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 19:1741–1744CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© SICOT aisbl 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Service de Chirurgie Orthopédique et Traumatologique, CHU Grenoble, Hôpital NordUniversité Grenoble AlpesLa TroncheFrance
  2. 2.Laboratoire TIMC-IMAG, CNRS UMR 5525Université Grenoble AlpesLa TroncheFrance

Personalised recommendations