Osteoporotic mid-thoracic vertebral body fractures: what are the differences compared to fractures of the lumbar spine?-a systematic review

Purpose The aim of this systematically review is to detect differences between fractures located at the mid-thoracic spine compared to fractures of the thoracolumbar junction (TLJ) and the lumbar spine in osteoporotic vertebral body fractures. Methods This review is based on articles retrieved by a systematic search in the PubMed and Web of Science database for publications regarding osteoporotic fractures of the thoracolumbar spine with respect to the fracture location. Differences in prevalence, cause of fracture, fracture healing, and outcomes between the mid-thoracic spine and the TLJ and the lumbar spine were considered. Results Altogether, 238 articles could be retrieved from the literature search. A total of 222 articles were excluded. Thus, 16 remaining original articles were included in this systematic review comprising the topics prevalence, bone mineral density and regional blood flow, biomechanics, subsequent fractures, and outcome, respectively. The overall level of evidence of the vast majority of studies was moderate to low. Conclusion Several differences between osteoporotic fractures of the mid-thoracic spine compared to the TLJ and the lumbar spine could be identified. Thereby, osteoporotic mid-thoracic fractures seem to be particularly more related to frailty without a history of traumatic injury compared to osteoporotic fractures of the TLJ and the lumbar spine. Additionally, the presence of severe mid-thoracic fractures predicts subsequent fractures of the hip. In contrast, subsequent fractures of the spine are less likely

Risk Factors for Failure in Conservatively Treated Osteoporotic Vertebral Fractures: A Systematic Review

Study Design: Systematic review. Objectives: Osteoporosis is one of the most common diseases of the elderly, whereby vertebral body fractures are in many cases the first manifestation. Even today, the consequences for patients are underestimated. Therefore, early identification of therapy failures is essential. In this context, the aim of the present systematic review was to evaluate the current literature with respect to clinical and radiographic findings that might predict treatment failure. Methods: We conducted a comprehensive, systematic review of the literature according to the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses) checklist and algorithm. Results: After the literature search, 724 potentially eligible investigations were identified. In total, 24 studies with 3044 participants and a mean follow-up of 11 months (range 6-27.5 months) were included. Patient-specific risk factors were age >73 years, bone mineral density with a t-score 23 and a modified frailty index >2.5. The following radiological and fracture-specific risk factors could be identified: involvement of the posterior wall, initial height loss, midportion type fracture, development of an intravertebral cleft, fracture at the thoracolumbar junction, fracture involvement of both endplates, different morphological types of fractures, and specific MRI findings. Further, a correlation between sagittal spinal imbalance and treatment failure could be demonstrated. Conclusion: In conclusion, this systematic review identified various factors that predict treatment failure in conservatively treated osteoporotic fractures. In these cases, additional treatment options and surgical treatment strategies should be considered in addition to follow-up examinations

Recommendations for Diagnosis and Treatment of Odontoid Fractures in Geriatric Patients

Background Odontoid fractures in geriatric patients represent an entity of increasing incidence with a high rate of morbidity and mortality. The optimal diagnostic and therapeutic management is being controversially discussed in the literature. Methods In a consensus process and based on the current literature, the members of the working groups Osteoporotic Fractures and Upper Cervical Spine of the German Society for Orthopaedics and Trauma Surgery (DGOU) defined recommendations for the diagnostics and treatment of odontoid fractures in geriatric patients. Results For the diagnosis of odontoid fractures in symptomatic patients, computed tomography represents the gold standard, along with conventional radiographs. Magnetic resonance and dynamic imaging can be used as ancillary imaging modalities. With regard to fracture classification, the systems described by Anderson/D'Alonzo and by Eysel/Roosen have proved to be of value. A treatment algorithm was developed based on these classifications. Anderson/D'Alonzo type 1, type 3, and non-displaced type 2 fractures usually can be treated non-operatively. However, a close clinical and radiological follow-up is essential. In Anderson/D'Alonzo type 2 fractures, operative treatment is associated with better fracture healing. Displaced type 2 and type 3 fractures should be stabilized operatively. Type 2 fractures with suitable fracture patterns (Eysel/Roosen 2A/B) can be stabilized anteriorly. Posterior C I/II-stabilization procedures are well established and suitable for all fracture patterns

OF-Pelvis classification of osteoporotic sacral and pelvic ring fractures

Objectives Osteoporotic fractures of the pelvis (OFP) are an increasing issue in orthopedics. Current classification systems (CS) are mostly CT-based and complex and offer only moderate to substantial inter-rater reliability (interRR) and intra-rater reliability (intraRR). MRI is thus gaining importance as a complement. This study aimed to develop a simple and reliable CT- and MRI-based CS for OFP. Methods A structured iterative procedure was conducted to reach a consensus among German-speaking spinal and pelvic trauma experts over 5 years. As a result, the proposed OF-Pelvis CS was developed. To assess its reliability, 28 experienced trauma and orthopedic surgeons categorized 25 anonymized cases using X-ray, CT, and MRI scans twice via online surveys. A period of 4 weeks separated the completion of the first from the second survey, and the cases were presented in an altered order. While 13 of the raters were also involved in developing the CS (developing raters (DR)), 15 user raters (UR) were not deeply involved in the development process. To assess the interRR of the OF-Pelvis categories, Fleiss' kappa (kappa(F)) was calculated for each survey. The intraRR for both surveys was calculated for each rater using Kendall's tau (tau(K)). The presence of a modifier was calculated with kappa(F) for interRR and Cohen's kappa (kappa(C)) for intraRR. Results The OF-Pelvis consists of five subgroups and three modifiers. Instability increases from subgroups 1 (OF1) to 5 (OF5) and by a given modifier. The three modifiers can be assigned alone or in combination. In both surveys, the interRR for subgroups was substantial: kappa(F) = 0.764 (Survey 1) and kappa(F) = 0.790 (Survey 2). The interRR of the DR and UR was nearly on par (kappa(F) Survey 1/Survey 2: DR 0.776/0.813; UR 0.748/0.766). The agreement for each of the five subgroups was also strong (kappa(F) min.-max. Survey 1/Survey 2: 0.708-0.827/0.747-0.852). The existence of at least one modifier was rated with substantial agreement (kappa(F) Survey 1/Survey 2: 0.646/0.629). The intraRR for subgroups showed almost perfect agreement (tau(K) = 0.894, DR: tau(K) = 0.901, UR: tau(K) = 0.889). The modifier had an intraRR of kappa(C) = 0.684 (DR: kappa(C) = 0.723, UR: kappa(C) = 0.651), which is also considered substantial. Conclusion The OF-Pelvis is a reliable tool to categorize OFP with substantial interRR and almost perfect intraRR. The similar reliabilities between experienced DRs and URs demonstrate that the training status of the user is not important. However, it may be a reliable basis for an indication of the treatment score