Bilateral pedicle stress fracture in a patient with osteoporotic compression fracture

A case of bilateral pedicle stress fracture of L4 in a patient with osteoporotic compression fracture of L5 and without a history of major trauma or surgery is reported, and the literature is reviewed. Bilateral pedicle fracture is a rare entity and few cases have been reported in the literature. All reported cases had some underlying causative factors like previous spine surgery or stress related activities. To the best of the authors’ knowledge, only one case of bilateral pedicle stress fracture without a history of trauma, previous spine surgery, or stress-related activities has been reported. A 77-year-old woman presented with severe low back pain and radiating pain in the right leg that was exacerbated after standing and walking. Plain radiograph showed pathological fracture at L5 level. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) revealed the compression of dural sac at L5 level. CT scan taken 3 months after admission revealed bilateral pedicle fractures through L4. The patient was treated with decompressive laminectomies of L4, followed by posterior spinal fusion with rigid pedicle screw fixation and autogenous bone graft mixed with hydroxyapatite. The patient achieved pain relief and returned to normal activity. Stress fracture of the pedicle within the proximal vertebra of an osteoporotic compression fracture of lumbar spine is an uncommon entity. It may, however, be an additional source of symptoms in patients with osteoporosis who present with further back pain. Surgeons caring for this group of patients should be aware of this condition

Operative management of type III extension supracondylar fractures in children

The purpose of this study was to compare primarily open versus primarily closed surgical treatment of Gartland type III extension supracondylar fractures in children. Also the outcomes of different pinning techniques in open surgery were evaluated retrospectively. Eighty displaced type III extension supracondylar fractures treated consecutively at two different centres were included. The treatment protocol of one institute was primarily closed reduction and percutaneous cross-pinning (n = 43). The treatment protocol of the other institute was primarily open reduction and internal fixation (n = 37) with two lateral parallel pins (n = 11), cross pins (n = 11) and two lateral and one medial pin (n = 15) according to the stability and configuration of the fracture. According to Flynn’s criteria the outcomes of the open and closed reduction groups were not statistically significant (P > 0.05). Although the outcomes of closed reduction showed no superiority over open reduction, it should be the first choice of treatment due to its low morbidity and short hospital stay