Full text is available at the source.
Prospective randomized controlled comparison of posterior vs. posterior–anterior stabilization of thoracolumbar incomplete cranial burst fractures in neurological intact patients: the RASPUTHINE pilot study
Comparing Back-Only and Back-Plus-Front Stabilization for Partial Upper Spine Burst Fractures in Patients without Nerve Damage
AI simplified
Abstract
21 patients were randomly assigned to either the posterior-anterior or posterior-only stabilization groups.
- The clinical outcome, measured by the Oswestry Disability Index, indicated less but statistically insignificant disability (13.3% vs. 19.3%, p = 0.67) for the posterior-anterior group compared to the posterior-only group.
- A crossover occurred in one patient from the posterior-only group, who required additional anterior stabilization due to severe initial loss of correction.
- The control group experienced a worsening in bisegmental kyphosis from 10.7° to 15.6°, while the interventional group showed an improvement from 11° to 8.3°.
- Results suggest better restoration of the sagittal profile for the posterior-anterior stabilization method.
- To detect a clinically significant difference in the multicentre trial, a total of 266 patients is necessary, accounting for a 20% loss to follow-up.
AI simplified