The Current Status of Spinal Posttraumatic Deformity: A Systematic Review

Abstract

Study Design:

Systematic Review.

Objective:

To systematically analyze the definitions and descriptions in literature of “Spinal Posttraumatic Deformity” (SPTD) in order to support the development of a uniform and comprehensive definition of clinically relevant SPTD.

Methods:

A literature search in 11 international databases was performed using “deformity” AND “posttraumatic” and its synonyms. When an original definition or a description of SPTD (Patient factors, Radiological outcomes, Patient Reported Outcome Measurements and Surgical indication) was present the article was included. The retrieved articles were assessed for methodological quality and the presented data was extracted.

Results:

46 articles met the inclusion criteria. “Symptomatic SPTD” was mentioned multiple times as an entity, however any description of “symptomatic SPTD” was not found. Pain was mentioned as a key factor in SPTD. Other patient related parameters were (progression of) neurological deficit, bone quality, age, comorbidities and functional disability. Various ways were used to determine the amount of deformity on radiographs. The amount of deformity ranged from not deviant for normal to >30°. Sagittal balance and spinopelvic parameters such as the Pelvic Incidence, Pelvic Tilt and Sacral Slope were taken into account and were used as surgical indicators and preoperative planning. The Visual Analog Scale for pain and the Oswestry Disability Index were used mostly to evaluate surgical intervention.

Conclusion:

A clear-cut definition or consensus is not available in the literature about clinically relevant SPTD. Our research acts as the basis for international efforts for the development of a definition of SPTD.

Keywords

spinal posttraumatic deformity posttraumatic kyphosis systematic review spine trauma

Introduction

A trauma to the spine was registered in 17% (144.909/861.888 incidents) of total traumatic incidents of the population in the USA in 2015.¹ Some degree of deformity is common after spine trauma, regardless of the treatment.^2-13 According to White et al and Whitesides, even a small degree of kyphosis, by increasing the moment arm, can lead to a progressive deformity over the years^14,15; however, at which point a posttraumatic deformity of the spine becomes clinically “relevant” or symptomatic is still up for debate. This “Spinal Posttraumatic Deformity” (SPTD) can require extensive surgery with high risk of complications and is more aggressive than treatment of the primary injury itself.^16-18 Indications for such surgical interventions for patients suffering from SPTD differ in literature.

The etiology of SPTD is multifactorial and the key factors are still unknown. Some examples of the factors involved are wrong or delayed fracture diagnosis, failure of treatment (either non-surgical or surgical), intervertebral disc (IVD)-injury and diseases influencing the bone quality.^12,16-22 SPTD has been described in various ways using clinical symptoms, kyphotic angles and other spine-related measurements on radiographs and Patient Reported Outcomes Measures (PROMs).

A decade ago, Schoenfeld et al published a survey to reach consensus about SPTD. A definition on which consensus between experts was reached was “a painful kyphotic deformity,” but no further specifics related to define SPTD reached a consensus.²³ This basic definition results in no practical conclusion to be used in clinical practice. Moreover, this definition does not consider the different spine regions. The absence of a clear definition of “clinically relevant” SPTD limits the possibilities to compare different treatments and prognostic factors involved. The aim of this study is to systematically review and evaluate the current definitions and descriptions of SPTD and which patient factors, radiological assessments and surgical indications are part of SPTD in literature. This will be the first step in gathering broad information to support the development of a uniform and comprehensive definition of SPTD in follow-up research.

Methods

Protocol and Registration

This review was structured using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis Statement (PRISMA-statement).²⁴ The protocol was registered in PROSPERO (registration number: CRD42019122293).

Eligibility Criteria, Information Sources and Search Strategy

A literature search in Pubmed, Embase, Scopus and 8 other international databases was performed using the search terms deformity and posttraumatic and its synonyms (Table 1), from 1950 until the present (date of search:23-12-2019). The search was limited to title and abstract using the correct field description. No language was excluded.

Table 1.

Full Search Strategy for the PubMed-Database.

Database
PubMed	(((scolio[Title/Abstract]) OR kypho[Title/Abstract]) OR spinal deform[Title/Abstract]) AND ((post[Title/Abstract] AND trauma[Title/Abstract]) OR posttrauma[Title/Abstract] OR postrauma[Title/Abstract])
All databases	Pubmed, Embase, Scopus, Global Clinical Trial Data, Cochrane library, SUDOC, Red de Revistas Científicas de América Latina y el Caribe, España y Portugal, eLibrary.ru, J-Stage and https://CNKI.net

The search string was adjusted accordingly to fit each different database. The search was performed on 23-12-2019.

Study Selection

All articles were screened on title and abstract by 2 independent observers (EDG, TV) after removal of duplicates using Rayyan QRCI (web application, Qatar Computing Research Institute (Data Analytics), Doha, Qatar). Articles were included if they concerned adults (≥18 years) and if: a definition of SPTD was given; the indication for treatment was SPTD; SPTD was mentioned as a diagnosis; or when recurrent kyphosis was evident after acute fracture. Any discrepancies between the 2 observers were resolved by discussion and if necessary, by consulting a senior independent author (SPJM). The full texts were screened on the in- and exclusion criteria and included on consensus by the 2 observers. The first author was contacted when a full text was not available. Exclusion criteria were: absent full text, review articles, patients <18 years, no mention of SPTD and congress abstracts. A cross-reference check was performed.

Data Collection Process and Data Items

The characteristics of the articles were assessed by extracting year of publication, type of study, spine level of interest and number of patients included. All the data was extracted by 2 independent observers. Discrepancies were resolved by discussion. The descriptions of SPTD were extracted and placed in 4 categories: Patient factors(e.g. pain, neurology), Radiological Outcomes (e.g. amount of deformity, radiographic diagnosis entity), PROMs and Surgical indication.

Risk of Bias per Study

Methodological quality was reviewed using the PRISMA-statement.²⁴ Because of the nature of the research questions the articles were critically appraised by our own system which was applied by 2 observers independently. The quality assessment was based on the presence of an original description or definition of SPTD. If: no original description or definition; just mentioning of SPTD without a description or recurrent kyphosis without additional information was given; the study was excluded based upon poor quality for the aim of this study. All types of study design were considered.

Summary and Synthesis

The terms/descriptions per category of SPTD were extracted from the included articles and placed in a table by both observers. As the data is qualitative data, a narrative synthesis was drafted, when certain terms were stated by multiple articles cumulative results were given.

Results

Search, Study Selection

In total, 1.675 articles were found in the searched databases of which 332 articles were included in full text analysis. Figure 1 displays the full search strategy. The cross-reference check showed 1 article which only mentioned SPTD and was excluded for the analysis. The included articles were placed in 2 categories: “Definition of SPTD” (9 articles) and “SPTD Surgical Indication” (37 articles). The study designs were: Expert opinion, Survey, Case reports, Case-series and Cohort studies. A chronological overview of the included articles and the extracted data can be found in Tables 2, 3A, and 3B.

Figure 1.

Flow chart of the conducted search for the definition or description of SPTD following the PRISMA-statement.

Table 2.

Overview of the Study Characteristics of the 46 Articles Included in the Quantitative Analysis.

ReferenceSPTD Definition	Year	Study type	Spine region of interest	Number of patients with SPTD
White et al¹⁴	1977	Expert Opinion	C, Th, L	NA
Malcolm²⁵	1979	Expert Opinion	Whole spine	NA
Rusu et al²⁶	2007	Expert Opinion	ThL	NA
Kandziora et al²⁷	2009	Expert Opinion	ThL	NA
Munting²⁸	2010	Expert Opinion	Th, L	NA
Schoenfeld et al²³	2010	Survey, Expert Opinion	CTh, Th, L	NA
Suchomel and Choutka²⁹	2010	Expert Opinion	Upper C	NA
Cecchinato et al³⁰	2014	Expert Opinion	ThL	NA
Boehm et al³¹	2017	Expert Opinion	Th, L	NA
SPTD Surgical indication
Malcolm et al³²	1981	Retrospective Cohort	Th, L	48
McBride and Bradford³³	1983	Case Series	ThL	6
Boni et al³⁴	1984	Retrospective Cohort	C	10
Kostuik³⁵	1984	Retrospective Cohort	Th, L	20
Roberson and Whitesides³⁶	1985	Cohort	Th, L	34
Dick³⁷	1987	Cohort	-	20
Kostuik and Matsusaki³⁸	1989	Retrospective Cohort	Th, L	37
Gertzbein and Harris³⁹	1992	Case Series, Expert Opinion	Th	3
Chang⁴⁰	1993	Case Series	ThL, L	17
Wu et al⁴¹	1996	Case Series	ThL, L	13
Atici et al⁴²	2004	Retrospective Cohort	Th, L	10
Been et al⁴³	2004	Retrospective Cohort	Th, L	25
Robertson et al⁴⁴	2004	Case Series	-	10
Stoltze et al⁴⁵	2008	Retrospective Cohort, Expert opinion	Th, L	268
Chou et al⁴⁶	2009	Case Report	ThL	2
Zhang et al⁴⁷	2010	Case Series	ThL	5
El-Sharkawi et al⁴⁸	2011	Prospective cohort with retrospective control	ThL, L	80
Wang et al⁴⁹	2012	Retrospective Cohort	ThL	21
Noor et al⁵⁰	2013	Expert opinion	Th, ThL	NA
Omidi-Kashani et al⁵¹	2013	Retrospective Cohort	ThL	26
Xi et al⁵²	2013	Retrospective Cohort	ThL	19
He and Xu⁵³	2013	Retrospective Cohort	ThL	10
Obeid et al⁵⁴	2013	Case Report	High Th	1
Soultanis et al⁵⁵	2014	Retrospective Cohort	Th, L, S	32
Shigematsu et al⁵⁶	2014	Case Report	Th12	1
Yagi et al⁵⁷	2015	Retrospective Cohort	NA	158
Gao et al⁵⁸	2015	Retrospective Cohort	Th11-L2	89
Bourghli et al⁵⁹	2015	Retrospective Cohort	ThL	10
Liu et al⁶⁰	2015	Case Report	L1	1
Hu et al⁶¹	2016	Retrospective Cohort	ThL	46
Chen et al⁶²	2016	Prospective Cohort	Th-L	58
Wang et al⁶³	2016	Randomized Controlled Trial	ThL	43
Li et al⁶⁴	2017	Retrospective Cohort	ThL	12
Rerikh et al⁶⁵	2017	Retrospective Cohort	Th-L	45
El Nagger et al⁶⁶	2018	Prospective Cohort	ThL	12
Matsumoto et al⁶⁷	2018	Retrospective Cohort	ThL	20
Avila et al⁶⁸	2019	Prospective multiple cohort	Th9-L3	30

The first 9 articles gave a specific definition of SPTD, the other 37 articles presented an original description of SPTD.

SPTD = Spinal Posttraumatic Deformity;

C = cervical spine, Th = thoracic spine; L = lumbar spine; S = sacral spine; NA = not available

Tables 3.

Overview of the Definitions and Descriptions of SPTD Divided in Patient Factors, Radiology, Spinopelvic Parameters, PROMs and Surgical Indications Given.

AReference	Patient factors	Radiology	Cutoff values	Spinopelvic	Cutoff values	Patient ReportedOutcome Measurements	Surgical indication
White et al¹⁴	-	-- Cobb	Th >30˚C/L > 5˚ or any posterior curvature	-	-	-	-
Malcolm²⁵	Body habitus, pain (partly discs), spinal crepitus, impaired sitting/ standing, ulceration, respiratory insufficiency, increased neurological deficit,	X Standing/sitting FS AP+LatX flex/ext, lat bendingTomographyMyelography (decompression)CAT-scan	-	-	-	-	Chronic cases depending on severity of presenting signs and symptoms
Rusu et al ²⁶	Pain, inability to work, deformities in clinical exam, neurological deficit (spasticity)	X Th/L AP+Lat- Cobb- Wedge angle- Segmental angleCT: planning surgeryMRI: soft tissue, neurologic involvement	-	-	-	-	Clinical symptoms most important: pain, neurological deficitCobb >20 ˚
Kandziora et al²⁷	Osteoporosis, refusal of therapy.Cardiac, pulmonic and abdominal dysfunction	X Standing FS AP+LatX flex/ext:MRI exclude syrinxCT surgical planning and excl non union	-	C7plumbline,ThK (T2-T12);LL (T12-S1)/(L2-S1);ThL (T10-L2)	Deviation from normalThK: +35˚ (20˚-50˚)LL -55˚(-45˚-65˚)LL -50˚ (-40˚-60˚)ThL 0˚	-	Pain unresponsive to therapy and physiotherapy;Neurological deficit (radiculopathy, myelopathy with claudication);Posttraumatic syrinx;Instability because of non-unionCosmetic appearance
Munting²⁸	Nociceptive sensitivity, age, pain, deformity, function, forward gaze, psychosocial problems, neurological deficit, cosmetic	X Standing FS:- SI	>20 ˚		Hyperlordosis L, hypo-/ or hyperkyphosis Th	Altered function
Schoenfeld et al²³	Pain, progressive deformity and deteriorating neurology (rare), A3/B1/B2 fracturesAsymptomatic SPTD does exist	X regional flex/ext- Cobb- Wedge angleMRI: Posterior Ligament Complex, spinal cord, Intervertebral discsCT: bony anatomy, non-union, facet jointsDiscography	5-30 ˚	C7 plumbline	Imbalance relative to sacral endplate	-	Proposed definition: Painful kyphotic deformity in posttraumatic spine.
Suchomel and Choutka²⁹	Pain dependent on neck rotation, occipital pain, reduced neck mobility, myelopathy, vascular compromise;No specific clinical presentation	X C AP+Lat, Flex/extCT: anatomyMRI: capacity spinal canal, neural compression	-	-	-	-	Cons: mild and stable deformity without neurological symptoms. Elderly and multiple comorbidities.Surg: neurological compromise, intractable pain as result of malalignment
Cecchinato et al³⁰	-	X FS AP+Lat	SI <15˚ compensation possible;SI >20˚ symptoms and in need of management	C7 plumbline, C7/SVA, PI, PT, ThK, LL	PT > 20˚ or high compared to expected PT	VAS <70/100 or ODI <20/100 less likely to benefit from surgery; VAS high or ODI >40 more benefit from surgery	No response conservative treatmentSagittal index >20˚PT > 20˚ or high compared to expected PTLumbar hyper-/ OR hypolordosis
AReference	Patient factors	Radiology	Cutoff values	Spinopelvic	Cutoff values	Patient ReportedOutcome Measurements	Surgical indication
Boehm et al³¹	Load dependent pain, compensatory mechanisms, deviations of physiological curves during standing and walking, neurological deficit	X standing FS AP+LatX functional (rigid, instability, correction potential)MR: ligaments, neurological structures, canal compromiseCT: nonunion, anatomy	Deviation from SRS: T1–5: ≥20°T5–12: ≥50°T10–L2: ≥20°T12–S1: ≥40°	C7-plumblineThKThLLLPI, PT, SS	-	-	Cons: Pain free deformitySurg: deformity, instability, stenosis>20˚ at former fracture site, pain at index level or other locations, neurological deficit. >15-20˚should be corrected.
BReference	Patient factors	Radiology	Cutoff values	Spinopelvic	Cutoff values	Patient ReportedOutcome Measurements	Surgical indication
Malcolm et al³²	Pain: apical constant aching, reduced by recumbency, ThL deformity had radiation to buttocks, progression of kyphosis, spinal crepitus; neurological deficit	X Standing/sitting FS AP+LatCobbX flex/extX lateral bending in scoliosisTomographyMyelography: neurology	-	-	-	pain	Symptomatic PTK
McBride and Bradford³³	Back pain at the apex of kyphosis, radicular pain or hypesthesia, urinary incontinence/urgency, rectal tenesmus or spasm, focal motor weakness (Frankel)	X Standing FS AP+Lat, flex/extCAT, lateral planograms: spinal canal encroachmentMyelography: neurological involvement	-	-	-	-	1. persistent or increasing neurological deficit or radicular pain, with anterior bony impingement, compromising at least 25% of spinal canal; 2. failed posterior instrumentation and fusion attempts with unstable, painful pseudarthrosis and kyphosis
Boni et al³⁴	Neurological deficit	X C AP-LatX C dynamic: residual mobility	-	-	-	-	Stenosis of 3 or more intersomatic spaces with myelopathy
Kostuik³⁵	Pain, progressive deformity, with/without neurological involvement	X regional AP+LatCAT	-	-	-	Pain	Painful and/or progressive kyphotic deformities with or without neurologic involvement
Roberson and Whitesides³⁶	Pain, deformity, neural embarrassment, incomplete rehabilitation	X regionalTomographyOccasionally CT	-	-	-	Pain relieve poor, fair or good	Increasing kyphotic deformity, pain, or increasing neurologic deficit
Dick³⁷	Severe pain	X Reg: kyphosis angle: upper endplate of vertebra above and lower endplate of fractured vertebra	-	-	-	-	Severe pain with failure of previous treatment
Kostuik and Matsusaki³⁸	Pain at apex and/or levels below, neurological deficit, limited walking	X regional AP+LatKyphosis angle: measured between cranial and caudal instrumented levelsCATMyelographyDiscography	-	-	-	Pain	Kyphosis angle >30˚Symptomatic PTK
BReference	Patient factors	Radiology	Cutoff values	Spinopelvic	Cutoff values	Patient ReportedOutcome Measurements	Surgical indication
Gertzbein and Harris³⁹	With or without neurology, with or without mechanical back pain, facet pain	X regional AP+Lat“Cobb” (lower endplate cranial vertebra and lower endplate of fractured vertebra)		-	-	-	Symptomatic PTK with Cobb >30˚, for the described procedure; but Cobb <30˚ is not excluding factor for other surgical treatment
Chang⁴⁰	Neurological deficit (Eismont muscle strength evaluation), progressive back pain, fatigue	X Standing AP+Lat:CobbX flex/ext: rigidityCT or Tomography: neurological topography	-	-	-	-	Progression of deformity and low back pain, constant fatigue with rigid kyphosis on flex/ext radiographs
Wu et al⁴¹	Pain, neurologic compromise (Frankel), disabled, pressure sores, fatigue, progressive deformity	X reg AP/LatCobbX Flex/ext	-	-	-	-	Rigid PTK
Atici et al⁴²	Back pain at apex, neurological deficit, cosmetic	X-ray: Cobb	Th >30 ˚L > 20 ˚	-	-	-	Th > 30˚, L >20˚ or neurological deficit
Been et al⁴³	Pain (apex or compensatory), neurological damage or progression, skin problems	X regional Standing AP+LatCobbScoliotic angle (Cobb method)CT: spinal canal	-	-	-	back pain scoring: Greenough and Fraser. VAS pain, same surgery again?	Symptomatic ThL PTK, pain not responding to conservative treatment.
Robertson et al⁴⁴	-	X regional AP+LatCobbCoronal plane deformity	-	-	-	-	Late reconstruction for PTD and pain
Stoltze et al⁴⁵	Vertebral (deformity, iatrogenic instability, stenosis, compensation/tendinosis) vs neurological (radiculopathy, tethered cord, atrophy/myelopathy, syrinx)	X Standing FS:Arthrosis hips, total balanceX regional function: segmental mobilityCT: bony anatomyMR: neurological involvement	-	-	Compensation: increased PT and flexion hips	-	Vertebral pain syndrome because of deformity or instability or neurological deficit
Chou et al⁴⁶	Pain (non-healed fracture or kyphosis)	X Standing FS AP+LatCT: healed fracture			Positive balance or compensatory hyperlordosis	VAS pain	Refractory to conservative treatment, debilitating pain. Kyphosis = 40˚; no osteoporosis
Zhang et al⁴⁷	Back pain, Neurology, progressive deformity	X Standing AP+Lat, flex/ext,- Cobb--> ERD = Cobb- physiological cobb for level (Stagnara et al)CT: 3D reconstruction;MRI: spinal canal influence	Severe PTKERD >60˚	-	-	VAS pain, ODI	Symptomatic PTK, ERD >60˚ still worsening with/without neurological defect, no osteoporosis/endocrine or metabolic disease
El-Sharkawi et al⁴⁸	Persistent low back pain, cosmetic	X Standing FS AP+lat- wedge angle	-	-	-	VAS pain, ODI, patient satisfaction	Symptomatic PTK
Wang et al⁴⁹	Painful kyphotic angulation, back pain, neurological function	X lat:- Cobb- Ant. and post. vertebral body heightCTMRI: Disc injury	-	-	-	JOA Back pain scores	Rigid PTK with:progression of kyphosis >5˚, kyphosis >30˚ with significant low back pain and deterioration of neurological function
BReference	Patient factors	Radiology	Cutoff values	Spinopelvic	Cutoff values	Patient ReportedOutcome Measurements	Surgical indication
Noor et al⁵⁰	Severe back pain, sagittal imbalance, compression myelum or nerve roots, pseudarthrosis	-	-	-	-	-	Severe complaints with kyphosis >15˚-30˚
Omidi-Kashani et al⁵¹	Fatigue and pain	X standing FS AP+Lat:- Cobb- MRI	-	-	-	VAS pain, ODI, patient satisfaction	Cons: mild casesSymptomatic PTK, no neurological deficit, no osteoporosis,Excl: Cobb>50˚ relative to normal, neurological deficit requiring ant. Decompression, age >60
Xi et al⁵²	Local muscle fatigue or pain, focal deformity, neurological deficit(ASIA)	X AP+Lat- Cobb- ThK- LLCT: 3D planning	-	SVA (cm)	-	VAS pain	progressive increase in Cobb, pitched trunk clinically OR follow-up revealed intractable back pain and increase neurological deficitconsider:1. Cobb>30˚ with persisting pain after cons treatment2. nerve compression or progressive aggravation of symptoms3. progressive kyphosis deformity4. urgent cosmetic requirement
He and Xu⁵³	Severe back pain, kyphosis	X standing FS AP+Lat	-	C7 plumblineThKLL	-	VAS pain, ODI	Severe backpain, kyphosis, conservative failed to alleviate symptomsAbsolute indication: progression of deformity
Obeid et al⁵⁴	Neck or high Th deformity, impaired horizontal gaze, chronic pain	X Standing FS AP+Lat- Kyphosis Angle (-),- Scoliosis, Coronal head shiftCT	-	-	-	-	Unbearable neck and high thoracic deformity with horizontal visual impairment; kyphosis 80˚
Soultanis et al⁵⁵	Residual kyphosis, can be asymptomatic, back pain, osteoporosis	X regional AP+Lat- Wedge angle- loss of Vertebral body height	-	-	-	VAS pain, ODI	10 patients with progressive deformity and back pain22 patients: mild residual kyphosis, asymptomatic. Treated conservativelyAll patients had low energy trauma
Shigematsu et al⁵⁶	Back pain, cosmetic deformity, late neurological deficit	Plain AP+Lat radiographs:- Fracture healing- Cobb (upper endplate of vertebra above and lower endplate fractured vertebra);MRI: neurological involvement	-	Sagittal balance:SVA	-	-	Difficulty with daily activities caused by severe sagittal imbalance, back pain or neurological disturbance
Yagi et al⁵⁷	ASIA A-D	X Standing FS AP:- Scoliosis Cobb angle	>10˚ lateral curve coronal plane	-	-	-	-
BReference	Patient factors	Radiology	Cutoff values	Spinopelvic	Cutoff values	Patient ReportedOutcome Measurements	Surgical indication
Gao et al⁵⁸	Intractable pain, stooping, rapid fatigue, progressive neurologic deficits	X regional:- CobbCT: 3D reconstructionMRI: neurological involvement	>30˚	-	-	VAS pain, ODI	Symptomatic PTK, focal ThL kyphosis >30˚
Bourghli et al⁵⁹	Painful, rigid, flexion of the knees	X Standing FS AP+Lat- ThL kyphosis (T10-L2)- Upper local kyphosis (lower endplate vertebra below, upper endplate of fractured vertebra)X Dynamic: stiffnessCT: anatomy (shape and osteophytes)	-	Frontal C7Sagittal C7ThKLLPT, SS, PI	-	-	Non-flexible ThL deformity with local kyphosis >30˚ on dynamic views and degenerated discs around fracture level
Liu et al⁶⁰	Overall loss of sagittal balance, back pain, cosmetic, could interfere with personal hygiene and daily physical life	X Regional AP+Lat:- CobbCT: 3D reconstructionMRI: spinal cord compression	45˚	-	-	-	Progressive back pain with kyphosis
Hu et al⁶¹	Pain, neurological impairment	X Standing FS- CobbX Pelvis	>30˚	SVAPT, SS, PI	-	VAS pain, ODI	Cobb >30˚ of SI;Significant pain refractory to conservative treatment;Increasing neurologic deficit
Chen et al⁶²	Neurological impairment (ASIA), some with obvious back pain	X Regional AP+Lat- CobbCT	-	-	-	VAS pain, ODI	Chronic pain in segment, some with progressive kyphosis.
Wang et al⁶³	Related to kyphosis: intractable pain, stooping, rapid fatigue, progressive neurological deficit, refractory after 3 months conservative therapy; no osteoporosis	X Regional AP+Lat- Cobb	>30˚	-	-	VAS pain, ODI	Symptomatic late PTK, no osteoporosis
Li et al⁶⁴	Back pain, neurological deficit (Frankel)Functional disability	X standing ThL AP+Lat:- Cobb- LL	-	-	-	VAS pain	Cons: Cobb <20˚, without obvious pain or neurological deficitSurg: Cobb >20˚ with pain, progressive nerve damage
Rerikh et al⁶⁵	Painful deformity	X FS AP+Lat- Cobb	Deviation from SRS-criteria	ThK(T1-T12)LL(L1-S1)ThL(T10-L2)PT, SS, PIRoussouly	Deviation from SRS-criteria	VAS pain, ODI
El Nagger et al⁶⁶	Back pain, local deformity with neurology	X Standing FS AP+Lat:- CobbOccasional:CT: evaluate deformityMRI: neurological involvement	Severe:Cobb>50	SVAThK (T5-T12)LL (-)	>25 mm	VAS pain, ODI	Inclusion of Severe PTK:Back pain affecting QoL (ODI>40, VAS >5), neurological symptoms, Cobb >50˚, SVA>25 mm
B Reference	Patient factors	Radiology	Cutoff values	Spinopelvic	Cutoff values	Patient Reported Outcome Measurements	Surgical indication
							Surg: refractory back pain, deteriorating neurology and SI>20˚
Matsumoto et al⁶⁷	Back pain	X Standing FS AP+Lat- Local kyphosis (lower endplate cranial, upper endplate caudal vertebra)	-	SVALL (fracture-S)ThK (T5-fracture)Segmental LL (L3-S/L4-S)PT, SS, PI	SRS-criteria	-	Rigid kyphotic deformity + symptoms including non-flexible deformity and very mild vertebral instability with local kyphosis and severe low back pain
Avila et al⁶⁸	-	X Standing FS AP+Lat- Cobb	-	C7 plumbline	-	ODI	Loss of spinal balance with PTK

X: radiograph; AP+Lat: anteroposterior and lateral views; C: Cervical spine; T: Thoracic spine; L: Lumbar spine; S: Sacral spine

CT: Computer Tomography; MR: magnetic resonance imaging; FS: full spine

Cobb: upper endplate of vertebra cranial and lower endplate of vertebra caudal

SRS-criteria: Scoliosis Research Society criteria

ThK: thoracic kyphosis, LL: lumbar lordosis; SVA: Sagittal Vertical Axis; PT: Pelvic tilt, SS: Sacral Slope, PI: Pelvic Incidence;

ERD: Effective Regional Deformity, SI: Sagittal index

VAS pain: visual analog scale of pain, ODI: Oswestry Disability Index

Cons: Conservative treatment, Surg: surgical treatment; PTK: posttraumatic kyphosis; QoL: quality of life

General

Used synonyms of SPTD were: late kyphotic deformity, chronic vertebral instability, (severe) posttraumatic kyphosis and symptomatic posttraumatic deformity. Asymptomatic SPTD exists according to Schoenfeld et al.²³ The presentation of patients with SPTD was between 3 months and 36 years after the primary spine injury. Only 4 articles addressed the cervical spine.

Patient Factors

Multiple patient factors were described as an element of SPTD in the included articles. The most common factor was pain which was mentioned in 38 of the 46 articles. Pain may be originating from different regions: the injured vertebra itself due to mechanical instability/pseudoarthrosis, other regions of the spine due to degeneration of the compensatory segments, IVD-lesions, or due to the fatigue of the tendinomuscular apparatus as a compensatory mechanism. Another patient factor mentioned in 29 of the 48 articles was the presence of a (pre-existing or increasing) neurological deficit. Clinical neurology was classified and evaluated using the American Spinal Injury Association Impairment Scale (ASIA)^52,57,62 or Frankel grade.^33,41,64

Other factors mentioned were, in order of frequency; noticeable progression of deformity, functional disability, cosmetic appearance, diseases affecting bone quality, skin ulceration, inability to maintain a forward gaze, respiratory insufficiency, spinal crepitus, impaired sitting or standing, body habitus, inability to work and problems with hygiene.^{25-28,32,41-43,47,48,54-56,60,64}

Radiology

Diagnostic tests, amount of deformity and surgical planning

The radiological workup to diagnose SPTD or for surgical planning was not clearly differentiated; therefore the results were combined. Regional and full standing lateral and anteroposterior radiographs of the spine were used by all but one article. Five different ways to measure the amount of deformity were described and 16 articles did not mention the way of measurement. The majority of the deformity angles were measured as proposed by Cobb (25 articles), between the upper endplate of the vertebra cranial of the affected vertebra and the lower endplate of the vertebra caudal to the affected vertebra. Other measurements were: between the upper and lower endplate of the affected vertebra (sometimes called “wedge angle”), between the lower or the upper endplate of the vertebra cranial and the lower endplate of the affected vertebra.

The amount of deformity to diagnose or treat SPTD was very diverse and depended on the way of measurement. The cut-off deformity angles for SPTD ranged from “different from the normal anatomy of the spine” to >30°. The majority of the articles included patients with deformities on different levels of the spine (i.e. T3-L2) but used the same cut-off value for each individual patient regardless of level of deformity. Some articles only gave a median or average of the angular deformities at different levels. Three articles used the SRS-criteria for adult spinal deformity to see if the deformity exceeded the normal anatomy of the spine.^31,65,67 All these different amounts of deformity were defined as SPTD.

Other methods to diagnose SPTD or plan a surgery were: flexion-extension radiographs (11 articles), myelography (3 articles), Computerized Tomography (CT) scan (19 articles) and Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MR) scan (13 articles). Flexion-extension radiographs were used to assess mechanical instability and the rigidity of the deformity. Myelography was used to depict the neurological anatomy.^25,32,38 CT scan was used to assess the presence of pseudoarthrosis (i.e. non-union or non-healed fracture), pre-operative bony anatomy, the facet joints and the spinal canal encroachment and to use 3D images for planning. MR scan was used to evaluate the neurological involvement, the posterior ligamentous complex (PLC) injury and to exclude a syrinx.

Spinopelvic parameters in SPTD

In recent papers, spinopelvic parameters were included in the definition, diagnosis and treatment of SPTD. The spinopelvic parameters were: the C7-plumbline or the Sagittal Vertical Alignment (SVA) for sagittal balance; and the pelvic parameters such as the Pelvic Tilt (PT), Sacral Slope (SS) and Pelvic Incidence (PI) to assess compensation in the pelvis.^30,31,59,61 All parameters were measured on standing full spine lateral radiographs, including the hip joints and preferably the base of the skull. The C7-plumbline was described in 7 articles. Imbalance was present when the plumbline fell outside the sacrum. A SVA >50 mm was scored as an imbalance in 6 articles. Compensation was suspected in 3 articles if deviation of the normal spinal alignment, as stated by the Scoliosis Research Society, was present.^31,65,67 Other signs of compensation mechanisms were: a PT >20 or a PT higher than expected; and an increased PT with flexion of the hips.^30,45 Kandziora et al and Boehm et al stated that the spinopelvic parameters could discern between 2 types of SPTD: 1. the compensated and/or sagittal balanced; 2. the sagittal imbalanced.^27,31

Patient Reported Outcomes Measurements

Different PROMs were performed to evaluate a treatment in 23 articles. The PROMs used were: Visual Analog Scale (VAS) for pain, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), patient satisfaction, Japanese Orthopedic Association (JOA) score of back pain and back pain scoring by Greenough and Fraser. Cecchinato et al stated that a patient with VAS pain scale of <70/100 and an ODI of <20/100 would less likely benefit from surgical intervention. A patient with VAS pain scale >70/100 or an ODI >40/100 would benefit from surgical intervention.³⁰ El Nagger et al only included patients in his study with severe SPTD and back pain affecting quality of life defined as a VAS>5 and an ODI >40.⁶⁶

Surgical Indication

Surgical indications of patients with SPTD were described in 42 articles. Description of the indication ranged from “symptomatic” or “rigid” SPTD^32,41,48 to explicit requirements on patient factors, radiological parameters and PROMs. Refractory pain or increasing pain after conservative therapy was described in 9 articles.^{27,29,30,43,52,53,61,63,66} Nineteen articles considered a progressive neurological deficit an absolute indication for surgical intervention. Progression can result from tension on the spinal cord, stenosis or a syrinx. Stoltze et al recommended differentiating between vertebral pain and neurological pain, to avoid disappointing results after surgical treatment.⁴⁵ Boni et al indicated surgical treatment when a cervical myelopathy due to stenosis, without specific kyphosis, was present in a patient.³⁴

Discussion

In this systematic review, we gave an overview of the descriptions of “Spinal Posttraumatic Deformity.” We explored 4 different domains that were used to describe SPTD. A clear-cut definition was absent in the literature.

We displayed the heterogeneity in the reported factors: the amount of deformity and method of measurement, the use of spinopelvic parameters and the use of PROMs. This great heterogeneity can be attributed to different study formats and the fact that no specific description of SPTD was sought, in all but 2 articles.^14,23

There is a relative lack of articles describing cervical SPTD. This can be explained by the fact that most fractures occur in the thoracic and lumbar spine.⁶⁹ Another potential reason may be that cervical fractures are more prone for surgical treatment and are not influenced by the body weight, which is suggested as a factor of progressive deformity.^25,70

The existence of asymptomatic SPTD is plausible as “symptomatic” SPTD is mentioned often. Schoenfeld et al concluded that asymptomatic SPTD does exist with agreement from all respondents.²³ However patients with SPTD almost exclusively suffer back pain in literature.

The amount of deformity in SPTD is measured in many different ways and the amount of deformity varies greatly, this is in agreement with a survey performed by Sadiqi et al.⁷¹ The methods used most in our review (Cobb and wedge angle) have been shown to have a high intra- and interrater reliability.⁷²

A major concern is the reporting of a mean or median kyphotic angle combining different spine regions within the same study. The regions of the spine have a different alignment, which means that an angle 30° in the high thoracic spine or the lumbar spine has different consequences. Some articles addressed this by using the Sagittal Index, the SRS-criteria or the Effective Regional Deformity.^{28,30,31,47,61,65-67}

Spinopelvic parameters are of great importance to assess the spine and are extensively studied in the context of degenerative spine diseases as opposed to the context of a traumatic spine. Already, the use of various spinopelvic parameters in Adult Spinal Deformity is encouraged for surgical planning.^73,74 Matsumoto et al suggested that if patients with SPTD compensated by increasing lumbar lordosis and thus maintained a SVA <50 mm, achieved good global spinal balance after surgical intervention combined with a decrease in lumbar lordosis.⁶⁷ Koller et al looked for correlations between spinal alignment and regional kyphosis in 146 patients treated conservatively after a thoracolumbar burst fracture. They found that lumbo-sacral lordosis had a significant correlation with regional kyphosis and segmental kyphosis at follow-up (average 9,5 years).⁷⁵ Rousseau et al looked at sagittal rebalancing after pedicle subtraction osteotomy in the lumbar spine for a multitude of etiologies, including SPTD. They found that patients with SPTD responded differently with a local lumbar lordosis gain, but no real reorientation of the pelvis was seen.⁷⁶ Spinopelvic parameters show promising correlation with SPTD, the question remains if certain values increase the risk of development of SPTD.

Contradictory correlations between SPTD and different factors were found. For example, a correlation between SPTD, pain and kyphosis>30 degree was found,³⁹ however others disagree.⁷⁷ Malcolm et al stated that body habitus and IVD injury play a role in the development of SPTD.²⁵ Rerikh et al found an inverse correlation of hyperlordosis/hyperkyphosis with the amount of thoracic kyphosis and lumbar lordosis. Also, a correlation was found between the deviation of SVA and the ODI and VAS of pain.⁶⁵ All these correlations were studied with different definitions of SPTD and are therefore difficult to interpret, compare and repeat.

Surgical indication of patients with SPTD was based on factors such as pain, progression of neurology, amount of deformity or “symptomatic” patients. Buchowski et al concluded in their review that pain was not an absolute indication for a surgical intervention contrary to some articles in our review.¹⁷ Of note, pain without radiological deformity after a spine trauma would be out of the context of SPTD. Due to the great variance in the surgical indications and definitions of SPTD, comparing effectiveness of interventions is not possible.

This review reflects the evolving concepts of SPTD over the last decades. For example, more recently PROMs are used increasingly in evaluation of patients with SPTD. Another striking point was the radiological assessments used to diagnose or describe SPTD. Some imaging techniques were not widely available and specific in the second half of the 20th century and were therefor not part of the description of SPTD. The way we see spinal trauma and treat it evolved throughout the last decades, this also influences the meaning of a deformity of the posttraumatic spine. The evolving vision on SPTD could partly explain the differences in descriptions throughout the years.

International efforts resulted in translation of all foreign languages by natives or capable readers. Two possible limitations of this study are both related to the nature of our research question. First, we searched for a description of SPTD which can be an opinion of an author. A risk-assessment as proposed by the PRISMA-statement was not applicable in our research. Normally Expert Opinion and Case Reports are rated as a high risk of bias, but in our study, it was occasionally the “best available evidence.” The quality of the articles that only mentioned SPTD without a description were considered low because they did not add value to the understanding of SPTD. The “recurrent kyphosis after fracture” articles could provide some insights on the possible risk factors in SPTD. They were also considered as low quality because a clear description to the recurrent kyphosis was not given other than that is was significantly different than before primary treatment. A second limitation of this study was the narrative character of the review. It is however not possible to find a definition or description by meta-analysis in this case. A last limitation is the number of articles excluded for inability to retrieve the full texts.

Kyphosis (or synonym) is used multiple times as a part of the definition of SPTD in current literature. A deformity after trauma, however, can be of a different shape. We propose, for future clinicians and researchers, that the more neutral Spinal Posttraumatic Deformity will be used to avoid inaccuracy.

Future research should focus on reaching a consensus on the definition of SPTD. Armed with a new definition, factors can be identified which lead to SPTD in an, ideally prospective, observational cohort of patients with vertebral fractures. In the ideal situation SPTD can be prevented if the contributing factors are addressed accordingly and timely.

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

We want to thank Dr. Martin Holas, Olesja Hazenbiller, Yabin Wu and Dr. Glinkowski for their support.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This study was supported by AO Spine through the AO Spine Knowledge Forum Trauma, a focused group of international Trauma experts. AO Spine is a clinical division of the AO Foundation which is an independent medically-guided not-for-profit organization.

ORCID iD

Erin E. A. De Gendt, MD

Andrei F. Joaquim, MD, PhD

Emiliano N. Vialle, MD, PhD

Alexander R. Vaccaro, MD, PhD

References

American College of Surgeons. NTDB Annual Report. Table 26. Incidents by AIS Body Region, Committee on Trauma. American College of Surgeons; 2016.

Verlaan

Diekerhof

Buskens

, et al. Surgical treatment of traumatic fractures of the thoracic and lumbar spine: a systematic review of the literature on techniques, complications, and outcome. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2004;29(7):803–814. doi:10.1097/01.BRS.0000116990.31984.A9

Öztürk

Ertürer

Sönmez

Sari

Şeker

Seçkin

. Early mobilization with customized TLSO brace in thoracolumbar burst fractures. Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc. 2012;46(5):373–378. doi:10.3944/AOTT.2012.2830

Zheng

Wang

Tang

, et al. Early posterior spinal canal decompression and circumferential reconstruction of rotationally unstable thoracolumbar burst fractures with neurological deficit. Chin Med J (Engl). 2013;126(12):2343–2347. doi:10.3760/cma.j.issn.0366-6999.20130034

Cankaya

Yilmaz

Deveci

, et al.

Clinical and radiological outcomes of conservative treatment after stable post-traumatic thoracolumbar fractures in elderly: is it really best option for all elderly patients?

Ann Med Surg. 2015;4(4):346–350. doi:10.1016/j.amsu.2015.08.009

Anghel

Petrisor

Buicu

Marton

Bâtagâ

. Predictive factors for postoperative deformity in thoracolumbar burst fractures: a statistical approach. Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc. 2015;49(2):133–138. doi:10.3944/AOTT.2015.14.0274

Loibl

Korsun

Reiss

, et al. Spinal fracture reduction with a minimal-invasive transpedicular Schanz Screw system: clinical and radiological one-year follow-up. Injury. 2015;46 Suppl 4:S75–82. doi:10.1016/S0020-1383(15)30022-X

Sadatsune

Costa

PP da

Caffaro

MFS

Umeta

Meves

Avanzi

. Thoracolumbar burst fracture: correlation between kyphosis and function after surgical treatment. Rev Bras Ortop. 2012;47(4):474–478. doi:10.1016/S2255-4971(15)30131-2

Alanay

Yazici

Acaroglu

Turhan

Cila

Surat

. Course of nonsurgical management of burst fractures with intact posterior ligamentous complex: an MRI study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2004;29(21):2425–2431. doi:10.1097/01.brs.0000143169.80182.ac

10.

Bagga

Goregaonkar

Dahapute

Muni

Gokhale

Manghwani

. Functional and radiological outcomes of thoracolumbar traumatic spine fractures managed conservatively according to Thoracolumbar Injury Severity Score. J Craniovertebr Junction Spine. 2017;8(4):369–373. doi:10.4103/jcvjs.JCVJS_93_17

11.

Bertram

Bessem

Wagner

Diedrich

Schmitt

. Comparison of dorso-lateral and dorso-ventral stabilization procedures in the treatment of vertebral fractures [in German]. Z Orthop Ihre Grenzgeb. 2003;141(5):573–577. doi:10.1055/s-2003-42841

12.

Steib

Aoui

Mitulescu

, et al.

Thoracolumbar fractures surgically treated by “in situ contouring.”

Eur Spine J. 2006;15(12):1823–1832. doi:10.1007/s00586-006-0161-5

13.

Pellisé

Barastegui

Hernandez-Fernandez

, et al. Viability and long-term survival of short-segment posterior fixation in thoracolumbar burst fractures. Spine J. 2015;15(8):1796–1803. doi:10.1016/j.spinee.2014.03.012

14.

White

Panjabi

Thomas

. The clinical biomechanics of kyphotic deformities. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1977;(128):8–17.

15.

Whitesides

. Traumatic kyphosis of the thoracolumbar spine. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1977;(128):78–92. doi:10.1097/00003086-197710000-00011

16.

Polly

DWJ

Klemme

Shawen

. Management options for the treatment of posttraumatic thoracolumbar kyphosis. Semin Spine Surg. 2000;12(3):110–116.

17.

Buchowski

Kuhns

Bridwell

Lenke

. Surgical management of posttraumatic thoracolumbar kyphosis. Spine J. 2008;8(4):666–677. doi:10.1016/j.spinee.2007.03.006

18.

Vaccaro

Silber

. Post-traumatic Spinal Deformity. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2001;26(24 suppl):S111–S118. doi:10.1097/00007632-200112151-00019

19.

Satin

Chen

Silber

Essig

. Sagittal plane deformity: evaluation and management. Semin Spine Surg. 2017;29(4):208–214. doi:10.1053/j.semss.2017.08.006

20.

Jacob

Buchowski

Bridwell

LGL

. Management of posttraumatic kyphosis after thoracolumbar injuries. Semin Spine Surg. 2010;22(2):92–102. doi:10.1053/j.semss.2009.12.001

21.

Eysel

Hopf

Fürderer

. Kyphotic deformities in fractures of the thoracolumbar spine [in German]. Orthopade. 2001;30(12):955–964.

22.

Oner

Rijt

RHHVD

Ramos

LMP

Groen

Dhert

WJA

Verbout

. Correlation of MR images of disc injuries with anatomic sections in experimental thoracolumbar spine fractures. Eur Spine J. 1999;8(3):194–198. doi:10.1007/s005860050156

23.

Schoenfeld

Wood

Fisher

, et al. Posttraumatic kyphosis: current state of diagnosis and treatment: results of a multinational survey of spine trauma surgeons. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2010;23(7):e1–8. doi:10.1097/BSD.0b013e3181c03517

24.

Moher

Shamseer

Clarke

, et al.; PRISMA-P Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Syst Rev. 2015;4(1):1. doi:10.1186/2046-4053-4-1

25.

Malcolm

. Spinal deformity secondary to spinal injury. Orthop Clin North Am. 1979;10(4):943–952.

26.

Rusu

Herold

Voigt

Lill

. Thorakolumbaler Übergang der Wirbelsäule. Trauma und Berufskrankheit. 2007;9(2):S249–S256. doi:10.1007/s10039-006-1149-4

27.

Kandziora

Schnake

Pingel

Hoffmann

. Posttraumatische thorakolumbale Kyphose. Trauma und Berufskrankheit. 2009;11(2):80–86. doi:10.1007/s10039-009-1487-0

28.

Munting

Surgical treatment of post-traumatic kyphosis in the thoracolumbar spine: indications and technical aspects. Eur Spine J. 2010;19(suppl 1):69–73. doi:10.1007/s00586-009-1117-3

29.

Suchomel

Choutka

Reconstruction of Upper Cervical Spine and Craniovertebral Junction. Posttraumatic Deformity. 2010:219–226.

30.

Cecchinato

Berjano

Damilano

Lamartina

. Spinal osteotomies to treat post-traumatic thoracolumbar deformity. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol. 2014;24(suppl 1):S31–37. doi:10.1007/s00590-014-1464-6

31.

Boehm

Shousha

Bahrami

. Korrekturosteotomie für posttraumatische Fehlstellungen. Trauma und Berufskrankheit. 2017;19(2):86–96. doi:10.1007/s10039-017-0263-9

32.

Malcolm

Bradford

Winter

Chou

. Post-traumatic kyphosis. A review of forty-eight surgically treated patients. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1981;63(6):891–899.

33.

McBride

Bradford

. Vertebral body replacement with femoral neck allograft and vascularized rib strut graft: a technique for treating post-traumatic kyphosis with neurologic deficit. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1983;8(4):406–415. doi:10.1097/00007632-198305000-00011

34.

Boni

Cherubino

Denaro

Benazzo

Multiple subtotal somatectomy: technique and evaluation of a series of 39 cases. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1984;9(4):358–362. doi:10.1097/00007632-198405000-00005

35.

Kostuik

. Anterior fixation for fractures of the thoracic and lumbar spine with or without neurologic involvement. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1984;(189):103–115.

36.

Roberson

Whitesides

Jr . Surgical reconstruction of late post-traumatic thoracolumbar kyphosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1985;10(4):307–312. doi:10.1097/00007632-198505000-00003

37.

Dick

. The “Fixatuer Interne” as a versatile implant for spine surgery. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1987;12(9):882–900. doi:10.1097/00007632-198711000-00009

38.

Kostuik

Matsusaki

. Anterior stabilization, instrumentation, and decompression for post-traumatic kyphosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1989;14(4):379–386. doi:10.1097/00007632-198904000-00006

39.

Gertzbein

Harris

. Wedge osteotomy for the correction of post-traumatic kyphosis: a new technique and a report of three cases. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1992;17(3):374–375. doi:10.1097/00007632-199203000-00025

40.

Chang

. Oligosegmental correction of posttraumatic thoracolumbar angular kyphosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1993;18(13):1909–1915. doi:10.1097/00007632-199310000-00032

41.

Hwa

Lin

Pai

Chen

. Management of rigid post-traumatic kyphosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1996;21(19):2260–2266. doi:10.1097/00007632-199610010-00016

42.

Atici

Aydinli

Akesen

Serifoglu

. Results of surgical treatment for kyphotic deformity of the spine secondary to trauma or Scheuermann’s disease. Acta Orthop Belg. 2004;70(4):344–348.

43.

Been

Poolman

Ubags

. Clinical outcome and radiographic results after surgical treatment of post-traumatic thoracolumbar kyphosis following simple type a fractures. Eur Spine J. 2004;13(2):101–107. doi:10.1007/s00586-003-0576-1

44.

Robertson

Rawlinson

Hadlow

. Radiologic stability of titanium mesh cages for anterior spinal reconstruction following thoracolumbar corpectomy. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2004;17(1):44–52. doi:10.1097/00024720-200402000-00010

45.

Stoltze

Harms

Boyaci

. Correction of post-traumatic and congenital kyphosis: indications, techniques, results [in German]. Orthopade. 2008;37(4):321–338. doi:10.1007/s00132-008-1228-2

46.

Chou

Wang

Storm

. Pedicle subtraction osteotomies for the correction of post-traumatic thoracolumbar kyphosis. J Clin Neurosci. 2010;17(1):113–117. doi:10.1016/j.jocn.2009.03.038

47.

Zhang

Wang

Chen

Wang

. Correction of severe post-traumatic kyphosis by posterior vertebra column resection. Chin Med J (Engl). 2010;123(6):680–685. doi:10.3760/cma.j.issn.0366-6999.2010.06.008

48.

El-Sharkawi

Koptan

El-Miligui

Said

. Comparison between pedicle subtraction osteotomy and anterior corpectomy and plating for correcting post-traumatic kyphosis: a multicenter study. Eur Spine J. 2011;20(9):1434–1440. doi:10.1007/s00586-011-1720-y

49.

Wang

Xiu

Zhong

Wang

. Simultaneous posterior and anterior approaches with posterior vertebral wall preserved for rigid post-traumatic kyphosis in thoracolumbar spine. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2012;37(17):E1085–E1091. doi:10.1097/brs.0b013e318255e353

50.

Noor

Bloemers

Bakker

. Surgical correction of post-traumatic kyphosis: a thoracoscopic approach [in Dutch]. Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd. 2013;157(10):A5427.

51.

Omidi-Kashani

Hasankhani

Ebrahimzadeh

Kachooei

Heidari

. Posterior surgery alone in the treatment of post-traumatic kyphosis by posterior column osteotomy, spondylodesis, instrumentation, and vertebroplasty. Asian Spine J. 2013;7(4):260–266. doi:10.4184/asj.2013.7.4.260

52.

Pan

Wang

, et al. Correction of post-traumatic thoracolumbar kyphosis using pedicle subtraction osteotomy. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol. 2013;23 suppl 1:S59–S66. doi:10.1007/s00590-013-1168-3

53.

. Transpedicular closing wedge osteotomy in the treatment of thoracic and lumbar kyphotic deformity with different etiologies. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol. 2013;23(8):863–871. doi:10.1007/s00590-012-1089-6

54.

Obeid

Laouissat

Vital

. Asymmetric T5 Pedicle Subtraction Osteotomy (PSO) for complex posttraumatic deformity. Eur Spine J. 2013;22(9):2130–2135. doi:10.1007/s00586-013-2942-y

55.

Soultanis

Mavrogenis

Starantzis

, et al.

When and how to operate on thoracic and lumbar spine fractures?

Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol. 2014;24(4):443–451. doi:10.1007/s00590-013-1341-8

56.

Shigematsu

Koizumi

Iida

Iwata

Tanaka

. Floating spine after pedicle subtraction osteotomy for post-traumatic kyphosis. Eur Spine J. 2014;23 suppl 2:278–284. doi:10.1007/s00586-014-3298-7

57.

Yagi

Hasegawa

Takemitsu

Yato

Machida

Asazuma

. Incidence and the risk factors of spinal deformity in adult patient after spinal cord injury: a single center cohort study. Eur Spine J. 2015;24(1):203–208. doi:10.1007/s00586-014-3534-1

58.

Gao

Yuan

Yang

Pan

Zhou

. Modified partial pedicle subtraction osteotomy for the correction of post-traumatic thoracolumbar kyphosis. Spine J. 2015;15(9):2009–2015. doi:10.1016/j.spinee.2015.04.047

59.

Bourghli

Boissière

Vital

, et al. Modified closing-opening wedge osteotomy for the treatment of sagittal malalignment in thoracolumbar fractures malunion. Spine J. 2015;15(12):2574–2582. doi:10.1016/j.spinee.2015.08.062

60.

Liu

Sun

Yang

Jiang

. Transpedicular wedge osteotomy for treatment of kyphosis after L1 fracture using intraoperative, full rotation, three-dimensional image (O-arm)-based navigation: a case report. Int J Clin Exp Med. 2015;8(10):18 889–18 893.

61.

Wang

Run

Zhang

Wang

. Pedicle subtraction osteotomy and disc resection with cage placement in post-traumatic thoracolumbar kyphosis, a retrospective study. J Orthop Surg Res. 2016;11(1):112. doi:10.1186/s13018-016-0447-1

62.

Chen

Kang

Zhou

Dai

. Correction of posttraumatic thoracolumbar kyphosis with modified pedicle subtraction osteotomy [in Chinese]. Zhong Nan Da Xue Xue Bao Yi Xue Ban. 2016;41(11):1208–1214. doi:10.11817/j.issn.1672-7347.2016.11.016

63.

Wang

, et al. Comparison of posterior vertebral column resection and anterior corpectomy and instrumentation for correcting late post-traumatic thoracolumbar kyphosis. Int J Clin Exp Med. 2016;9(9):17435–17441.

64.

Hua

, et al. Clinical outcome and surgical strategies for late post-traumatic kyphosis after failed thoracolumbar fracture operation: case report and literature review. Medicine (Baltimore). 2017;96(49):e8770. doi:10.1097/MD.0000000000008770

65.

Rerikh

Borzykh

Samokhin

. Correlations of functional capacity and parameters of sagittal balance in patients with posttraumatic deformities of the spine. Modern problems of science and education 2017;6: 4–4.

66.

El Naggar

Elgawhary

ElHewala

. Posterior vertebral column resection in management of severe post-traumatic thoracolumbar kyphosis. Egypt Spine J. 2018;28(1):48–58.

67.

Matsumoto

Hoshino

Omori

, et al. Compensatory mechanism of the spine after corrective surgery without lumbar-sacral fixation for traumatic thoracolumbar kyphotic spine deformity. J Orthop Sci. 2018;23(2):253 257. doi:10.1016/j.jos.2017.12.007

68.

Avila

Garcia

Vergara

Cisneros

. Surgical correction of post-traumatic kyphosis with osteotomies in the spine. Coluna/Columna. 2019;18(1):60–63. doi:10.1590/S1808-185120191801215074

69.

Den Ouden

Smits

Stadhouder

Feller

Deunk

Bloemers

. Epidemiology of spinal fractures in a level one trauma center in the Netherlands: a 10 years review. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2019;44(10):732–739. doi:10.1097/BRS.0000000000002923

70.

Ponkilainen

Toivonen

Niemi

Kannus

Huttunen

Mattila

. Incidence of spine fracture hospitalization and surgery in Finland in 1998–2017. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2020;45(7):459–464. doi:10.1097/brs.0000000000003286

71.

Sadiqi

Verlaan

Lehr

, et al. Measurement of kyphosis and vertebral body height loss in traumatic spine fractures: an international study. Eur Spine J. 2017;26(5):1483–1491. doi:10.1007/s00586-016-4716-9

72.

Kuklo

Polly

Owens

Zeidman

Chang

Klemme

. Measurement of thoracic and lumbar fracture kyphosis: evaluation of intraobserver, interobserver, and technique variability. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2001;26(1):61–65. doi:10.1097/00007632-200101010-00012

73.

Schwab

Patel

Ungar

Farcy

Lafage

Adult spinal deformity-postoperative standing imbalance: how much can you tolerate? An overview of key parameters in assessing alignment and planning corrective surgery. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2010;35(25):2224–2231. doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181ee6bd4

74.

Schwab

Ungar

Blondel

, et al. Scoliosis Research Society-Schwab Adult Spinal Deformity Classification: a validation study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2012;37(12):1077–1082. doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e31823e15e2

75.

Koller

Acosta

Hempfing

, et al. Long-term investigation of nonsurgical treatment for thoracolumbar and lumbar burst fractures: an outcome analysis in sight of spinopelvic balance. Eur Spine J. 2008;17(8):1073–1095. doi:10.1007/s00586-008-0700-3

76.

Rousseau

Lazennec

Tassin

Fort

la Scoliose

. Sagittal rebalancing of the pelvis and the thoracic spine after pedicle subtraction osteotomy at the lumbar level. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2014;27(3):166–173.

77.

Zeng

Chen

Guo

Sun

. Complications of correction for focal kyphosis after posterior osteotomy and the corresponding management. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2013;26(7):367–374. doi:10.1097/BSD.0b013e3182499237