DOES ‘CANAL CLEARANCE’ AFFECT NEUROLOGICAL OUTCOME AFTER THORACOLUMBAR BURST FRACTURES?

Abstract

Surgical decompression of the spinal canal is presently accepted worldwide as the method of treatment for thoracolumbar burst fractures with neurological deficit in the belief that neurological recovery may be produced or enhanced. Our clinical and laboratory experience, however, indicates that the paralysis occurs at the moment of injury and is not related to the position of the fragments of the fracture on subsequent imaging. Since the preoperative geometry of the fracture may be of no relevance, our hypothesis, backed by more than two decades of operative experience, is that alteration of the canal by ‘surgical clearance’ does not affect the neurological outcome. We have reviewed the existing world literature in an attempt to find evidence-based justification for the variety of surgical procedures used in the management of these fractures. We retrieved 275 publications on the management of burst fractures of which 60 met minimal inclusion criteria and were analysed more closely. Only three papers were prospective studies; the remainder were retrospective descriptive analyses. None of the 60 articles included control groups. The design of nine studies was sufficiently similar to allow pooling of their results, which failed to establish a significant advantage of surgical over non-surgical treatment as regards neurological improvement. Significant complications were reported in 75% of papers, including neurological deterioration. Surgical treatment for burst fracture in the belief that neurological improvement can be achieved is not justified, although surgery may still occasionally be indicated for structural reasons. This information should not be withheld from the patients.