Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery versus Open Posterior Instrumentation Surgery for Unstable Thoracolumbar Burst Fracture

Abstract

Study Design: Retrospective study.Purpose: To compare the clinical and radiological results of minimally invasive spine surgery (MISS) and open posterior instrumentationsurgery for the treatment of unstable burst fractures.Overview of Literature: MISS has exhibited postoperative outcomes similar to those obtained using open posterior instrumentationin various spine diseases. There remains no consensus regarding the use of MISS in the treatment of unstable burst fracture.Methods: We enrolled 40 patients who underwent either MISS (M group, 20 patients) or open posterior instrumentation surgery (Ogroup, 20 patients) for the treatment of traumatic unstable burst fractures. Clinical outcomes were evaluated based on postoperativeback pain, operation time, blood loss, hospital stay duration, and perioperative complications. For radiologic evaluation, preoperativemagnetic resonance imaging and plain radiography were performed before and after the surgery to evaluate the changes in the kyphoticangle and fracture union.Results: The change in the kyphotic angle was −8.2°±5.8° in the M group and −8.0°±7.8° in the O group. No significant differencewas noted in terms of the change in the kyphotic angle (p =0.94, t -test) after 12 months of surgery. The Visual Analog Scale score was1.5±0.7 points in the M group, while it was 5.2±1.4 points in the O group. In the M group, back pain has significantly decreased (p <0.01,t -test). The estimated blood loss was 195.5 mL in the M group and 1,077.5 mL in the O group; the operation time was significantlydecreased in the O group from 290.7 to 120.7 minutes in the M group (p <0.05, t -test) (p =0.36, t -test). The average duration of hospitalstay was 36.0 days in the M group and 41.9 days in the O group (p =0.36, t -test).Conclusions: For the treatment of unstable burst fractures, MISS showed significant differences in terms of postoperative back pain,operation time, and blood loss as compared to open posterior instrumentation surgery