Intervention Review

You have free access to this content

Pedicle screw fixation for traumatic fractures of the thoracic and lumbar spine

  1. Li Ming Cheng1,*,
  2. Jian Jie Wang1,
  3. Zhi Li Zeng1,
  4. Rui Zhu1,
  5. Yan Yu1,
  6. Chunbo Li2,
  7. Zhou Rui Wu1

Editorial Group: Cochrane Bone, Joint and Muscle Trauma Group

Published Online: 31 MAY 2013

Assessed as up-to-date: 25 JUN 2011

DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009073.pub2


How to Cite

Cheng LM, Wang JJ, Zeng ZL, Zhu R, Yu Y, Li C, Wu ZR. Pedicle screw fixation for traumatic fractures of the thoracic and lumbar spine. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2013, Issue 5. Art. No.: CD009073. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009073.pub2.

Author Information

  1. 1

    Shanghai Tongji Hospital, Spine Surgery of Orthopedics Department, Shanghai, China

  2. 2

    Shanghai Mental Health Centre, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Department of Biological Psychiatry, Shanghai, China

*Li Ming Cheng, Spine Surgery of Orthopedics Department, Shanghai Tongji Hospital, Tongji University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China. limingcheng@tongji.edu.cn. chlm.d@163.com.

Publication History

  1. Publication Status: New
  2. Published Online: 31 MAY 2013

SEARCH

[Figure 1]
Figure 1. Risk of bias graph: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item presented as percentages across all included studies.
[Figure 2]
Figure 2. Risk of bias summary: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study.
[Analysis 1.1]
Analysis 1.1. Comparison 1 Short-segment instrumentation versus long-segment instrumentation, Outcome 1 Low Back Outcome Score (0 to 75: best outcome) at average 29.6 months follow-up.
[Analysis 1.2]
Analysis 1.2. Comparison 1 Short-segment instrumentation versus long-segment instrumentation, Outcome 2 Radiological outcomes at final follow-up.
[Analysis 1.3]
Analysis 1.3. Comparison 1 Short-segment instrumentation versus long-segment instrumentation, Outcome 3 Peri-operative outcomes.
[Analysis 1.4]
Analysis 1.4. Comparison 1 Short-segment instrumentation versus long-segment instrumentation, Outcome 4 Length of hospital stay (days).
[Analysis 2.1]
Analysis 2.1. Comparison 2 Short-segment instrumentation with transpedicular grafting (TPG) versus short-segment fixation alone (NTPG), Outcome 1 Self-reported function and pain (Likert scale: 0 to 10: best) at 32 months.
[Analysis 2.2]
Analysis 2.2. Comparison 2 Short-segment instrumentation with transpedicular grafting (TPG) versus short-segment fixation alone (NTPG), Outcome 2 Radiological outcomes at 32 months follow-up.
[Analysis 2.3]
Analysis 2.3. Comparison 2 Short-segment instrumentation with transpedicular grafting (TPG) versus short-segment fixation alone (NTPG), Outcome 3 Kyphosis correction loss > 10 degrees.
[Analysis 2.4]
Analysis 2.4. Comparison 2 Short-segment instrumentation with transpedicular grafting (TPG) versus short-segment fixation alone (NTPG), Outcome 4 Peri-operative outcomes.
[Analysis 2.5]
Analysis 2.5. Comparison 2 Short-segment instrumentation with transpedicular grafting (TPG) versus short-segment fixation alone (NTPG), Outcome 5 Length of hospital stay (days).
[Analysis 3.1]
Analysis 3.1. Comparison 3 Posterior pedicular fixation with fracture level screw incorporation (including) versus without incorporation (bridging), Outcome 1 Pain (VAS scale: 0 to 10: worst) at 37 months follow.
[Analysis 3.2]
Analysis 3.2. Comparison 3 Posterior pedicular fixation with fracture level screw incorporation (including) versus without incorporation (bridging), Outcome 2 Postoperative complications.
[Analysis 3.3]
Analysis 3.3. Comparison 3 Posterior pedicular fixation with fracture level screw incorporation (including) versus without incorporation (bridging), Outcome 3 Radiological outcomes at final follow-up.
[Analysis 3.4]
Analysis 3.4. Comparison 3 Posterior pedicular fixation with fracture level screw incorporation (including) versus without incorporation (bridging), Outcome 4 Peri-operative outcomes.
[Analysis 3.5]
Analysis 3.5. Comparison 3 Posterior pedicular fixation with fracture level screw incorporation (including) versus without incorporation (bridging), Outcome 5 Length of hospital stay (days).
[Analysis 4.1]
Analysis 4.1. Comparison 4 Monosegmental transpedicular fixation (MSPI) versus short-segment pedicle instrumentation (SSPI), Outcome 1 Low Back Outcome Score (0 to 75: best outcome) at average 27.8 months follow-up.
[Analysis 4.2]
Analysis 4.2. Comparison 4 Monosegmental transpedicular fixation (MSPI) versus short-segment pedicle instrumentation (SSPI), Outcome 2 Oswestry Disability Index (0 to 100: worst disability) at average 27.8 months follow-up.
[Analysis 4.3]
Analysis 4.3. Comparison 4 Monosegmental transpedicular fixation (MSPI) versus short-segment pedicle instrumentation (SSPI), Outcome 3 Pain (VAS scale: 0 to 10: worst) at 27.8 months follow up.
[Analysis 4.4]
Analysis 4.4. Comparison 4 Monosegmental transpedicular fixation (MSPI) versus short-segment pedicle instrumentation (SSPI), Outcome 4 Radiological outcomes at 27.8 months follow-up.
[Analysis 4.5]
Analysis 4.5. Comparison 4 Monosegmental transpedicular fixation (MSPI) versus short-segment pedicle instrumentation (SSPI), Outcome 5 Peri-operative outcomes.
[Analysis 5.1]
Analysis 5.1. Comparison 5 Fusion versus non-fusion, Outcome 1 Self-reported function and quality of life scores at final follow-up.
[Analysis 5.2]
Analysis 5.2. Comparison 5 Fusion versus non-fusion, Outcome 2 Neurological status at final follow-up.
[Analysis 5.3]
Analysis 5.3. Comparison 5 Fusion versus non-fusion, Outcome 3 Pain (VAS scale: 0 to 10: worst) at 72 months follow up.
[Analysis 5.4]
Analysis 5.4. Comparison 5 Fusion versus non-fusion, Outcome 4 Postoperative complications.
[Analysis 5.5]
Analysis 5.5. Comparison 5 Fusion versus non-fusion, Outcome 5 Radiographic outcomes at final follow-up.
[Analysis 5.6]
Analysis 5.6. Comparison 5 Fusion versus non-fusion, Outcome 6 Peri-operative outcomes.
[Analysis 5.7]
Analysis 5.7. Comparison 5 Fusion versus non-fusion, Outcome 7 Length of hospital stay (days).