Abstract:Background Spine fractures are common. The treatment of traumatic fractures of the thoracic and lumbar spine remains controversial but surgery involving pedicle screw fixation has become a popular option. Objectives To assess the effects (benefits and harms) of pedicle screw fixation for traumatic fractures of the thoracic and lumbar spine. Search methods We searched the Cochrane Bone, Joint and Muscle Trauma Group Specialised Register (March 2011), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; The Cochrane Library, 2011 Issue 1), MEDLINE (1948 to March 2011), EMBASE (1980 to 2011 Week 11), the Chinese Biomedical Database (CBM Database) (1978 to March 2011), the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (March 2011), reference lists of articles and conference proceedings. Selection criteria Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi‐randomised controlled trials comparing pedicle screw fixation and other methods of surgical treatment, or different methods of pedicle screw fixation, for treating traumatic fractures of the thoracic and lumbar spine. Data collection and analysis Three review authors independently performed study selection, risk of bias assessment and data extraction. Limited meta‐analysis was performed. Main results Pedicle screw fixation versus other methods of surgery that do not involve pedicle screw fixation was not looked at in any of the identified trials. Studies that were identified investigated different methods of pedicle fixation. Five randomised and three quasi‐randomised controlled trials were included. All were at high or unclear risk of various biases, including selection, performance and detection bias. A total of 448 patients with thoracic and lumbar spine fractures were included in the review. Participants were restricted to individuals without neurological impairment in five trials. The mean ages of study populations of the eight trials ranged from 33 to 41 years, and participants had generally experienced traumatic injury. Mean follow‐up for trial participants in the eight trials ranged from 28 to 72 months. Five comparisons were tested. Two trials compared short‐segment instrumentation versus long‐segment instrumentation. These studies found no significant differences between the two groups in self‐reported function and quality of life at final follow‐up. Aside from one participant, who sustained partial neurological deterioration that was resolved by further surgery (group not known), no neurological deterioration was noted in these trials. One trial comparing short‐segment instrumentation with transpedicular bone grafting versus short‐segment ﬁxation alone found no significant difference between the two groups related to patient‐perceived function and pain at final follow‐up. All participants had normal findings on neurological examination at final follow‐up. Two trials compared posterior instrumentation with fracture level screw incorporation ('including' group) versus posterior instrumentation alone ('bridging' group). Investigators reported no differences between the two groups in patient‐reported function, quality of life, or pain at final follow‐up. One trial confirmed that all participants had normal findings on neurological examination at final follow‐up. One trial comparing monosegmental pedicle screw instrumentation versus short‐segment pedicle instrumentation found no significant differences between the two groups in Oswestry Disability Index results or in pain scores at final follow‐up. No neurological deterioration was reported. Three trials compared posterior instrumentation with fusion versus posterior instrumentation without fusion. Researchers found no differences between the two groups in function and quality of life or pain. No participants showed a decline in neurological status in any of the three trials, and no significant difference was reported between groups in the numbers whose status had improved at final follow‐up. Two trials stated that patients in the fusion group frequently had donor site pain. Other reported complications included deep vein thrombosis and superficial infection. Authors' conclusions This review included only eight small trials and five different comparisons of methods of pedicle fixation in various participants while looking at a variety of outcomes at different time points. Overall, evidence is insufficient to inform the selection of different methods of pedicle screw fixation or the combined use of fusion. However, in the absence of robust evidence to support fusion, it is important to factor the risk of long‐term donor site pain related to bone harvesting into the decision of whether to use this intervention. Further research involving high‐quality randomised trials is needed.

The Comparison between Spinal Facet Joint Toothed Plate and Traditional Pedicle Screw‐rod on Reduction of Thoracolumbar Fracture

Reduce the Fractured Central Endplate in Thoracolumbar Fractures Using Percutaneous Pedicle Screws and Instrumentational Maneuvers: Technical Strategy and Radiological Outcomes.

[Clinical Research of Percutaneous Monoplanar Screw Internal Fixation Via Injured Vertebrae for Thoracolumbar Fracture].

Clinical Comprehension of Thoracolumbar Spine Fracture Treatmented with Posterior Monosegmental Vertebral Pedicle Screw Fixation at the Injured Vetebrae

Efficacy of One-Stage Posterior-Anterior Approach for Treatment of Severe Thoracolumbar Fractures

Pedicle Screw Reduction and Fixation for Thoracolumbar Fractures Via or Not the Injured Vertebra:A Comparative Study

Comparison of two different percutaneous pedicle screw fixation for thoracolumbar fractures without neurological deficit

Comparison of Clinical Results Between Novel Percutaneous Pedicle Screw and Traditional Open Pedicle Screw Fixation for Thoracolumbar Fractures Without Neurological Deficit

Comparison of Clinical Effect of Pedicle Fixation in Different Segments in Thoracolumbar Spine Fractures

Comparison of Curative Effect of Forceful Reduction Percutaneous Pedicle Screw and Ordinary Percutaneous Pedicle Screw in the Treatment of Osteoporotic Thoracolumbar Burst Fracture with Kyphosis

Comparison of Consecutive Pedicle Screw Fixation & Short-segment Pedicle Screw Fixation for Thoracolumbar Burst Fracture

Comparision of minimally invasive percutaneous and traditional open treatment for thoracolumbar fractures with pedicle screw system

Comparison of Minimally Invasive Self-Dilating Pedicle Screw-Rod System and Conventional Pedicle Screw-Rod System for Treatment of Thoracolumbar Fractures

Short-term effectiveness of pedicle fixation at the fractured vertebra via paravertebral intermuscular ap-proach for thoracolumbar fractures

Treatment of Thoracolumbar Fractures by Percutaneous Pedicle Screw Fixation Technique Combined with Three-Step Reduction

Postural reduction and minimally invasive percutaneous pedicle screws reduction osteosynthesis for thoracolumbar vertebral severe compression fractures

Posterior short-segmental pedicle screw fixation in treatment of 186 patients with single-level thoracolumbar burst fracture without nerologic deficit

Percutaneous pedicle screw insertion for treatment of lumbar spine compression fractures via intersection of facet and center line of transverse process

A Novel, Percutaneous, Self-Expanding, Forceful Reduction Screw System for the Treatment of Thoracolumbar Fracture with Severe Vertebral Height Loss

Comparison of Efficacy of KumaFix Posterior Spinal Screw / Rod System and Posterior U-shape Screw / Rod System for Treatment of Thoracolumbar Vertebral Body Fractures

Pedicle Screw Fixation for Traumatic Fractures of the Thoracic and Lumbar Spine