ArticleInternational journal of spine surgery2018
A Comparison of Three Different Methods of Fixation in the Management of Thoracolumbar Fractures.
Article in International journal of spine surgery, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Does surgical approach or preoperative deformity better predict outcomes in thoracolumbar fractures? A comparative study of minimally invasive versus open techniques.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2026Article
- Is restoration of vertebral body height after vertebral body fractures and minimally-invasive dorsal stabilization with polyaxial pedicle screws just an illusion?Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery · 2024Article
- Effects of Bone Cross-Link Bridging on Fracture Mechanism and Surgical Outcomes in Elderly Patients with Spine Fractures.Asian spine journal · 2023Article
- Analysis of the Classification Systems for Thoracolumbar Fractures in Adults and Their Evolution and Impact on Clinical Management.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundManagement of thoracolumbar fractures remains controversial in the literature. The primary aims of this study were to assess different levels of fixation with respect to radiological outcomes in terms of fracture reduction and future loss of correction.
methodsThis is a single center, retrospective study. Fifty-five patients presenting with thoracolumbar fractures between January 2012 and December 2015 were analyzed in the study. The levels of fixation were divided in 3 groups: 1 vertebra above and 1 below the fracture (1/1), 2 above and 2 below (2/2), and 2 above and 1 below (2/1).
resultsThe most common mechanism was high fall injury, and the most common vertebra L1. Burst fractures were the ones with the highest incidence. The 2/2 fixation achieved the best reduction of the fracture, but with no statistical significance. The correction is maintained better by the 2/2 fixation, but there is no statistical difference compared to the other fixations. Insertion of screws at the fracture level did not improve outcomes.
conclusionThe data of this study identified a trend toward better radiological outcomes for fracture reduction and maintenance of the correction in the 2/2 fixations. However, these results are not statistically significant. Future multicenter prospective clinical trials are needed in order to agree on the ideal management and method of fixation for thoracolumbar fractures.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.