Open Versus Percutaneous Stabilization of Thoracolumbar Fractures: A Large Retrospective Analysis of Safety and Reoperation Rates.

backgroundThoracolumbar fractures (TLF) requiring surgical intervention can be treated with either open or percutaneous stabilization, each with some distinct risks and benefits. There is insufficient evidence available to support one approach as superior.

methodsPatients who underwent spinal fixation for TLF between 2008 and 2020 were reviewed. Patients with one or two levels of fracture treated with either open or percutaneous stabilization were included. Exclusion criteria were more than two levels of fracture, patients requiring corpectomy, stabilization constructs that crossed the cervicothoracic or lumbosacral junction, history of previous thoracolumbar fusion at the same level, spinal neoplasm, anterior or lateral fixation, and spinal infection. Demographic, operative, and clinical data were collected for all patients.

results691 patients (377 open, 314 percutaneous) met the inclusion criteria. Patients in the percutaneous cohort sustained lower estimated blood loss (73 vs 334 ml; p< 0.001) and shorter length of surgery (114 vs. 151 minutes; p< 0.001). No differences were observed in the length of hospital stay or overall reoperation rates. Asymptomatic (7.0% vs 0.8%) and symptomatic (3.5% vs 0.5%) hardware removal was more common with the percutaneous cohort, while the incidence of revision surgery due to hardware failure requiring the extension of the construct (1.9% vs 5.8%) and infection (1.9% vs 6.4%) was greater in the open group.

conclusionPercutaneous stabilization for TLF was associated with shorter operative time, less blood loss, lower infection rate, higher rates of elective hardware removal, and lower rates of hardware failure requiring extension of the construct compared to open stabilization.