Kweh Barry Ting Sheen, Vaccaro Alexander R, Schroeder Gregory, Canseco Jose A, Reinhold Maximilian, Aly Mohamed M, Bigdon Sebastian, El-Skarkawi Mohammad, Bransford Richard J, Joaquim Andrei Fernandes, Chhabra Harvinder Singh, Vialle Emiliano, Kanna Rishi M, Dandurand Charlotte, Öner Cumhur, Tee Jin Wee
National Trauma Research Institute, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Department of Neurosurgery, The Alfred Hospital, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Global Spine J. 2025 Aug 27:21925682251366981. doi: 10.1177/21925682251366981.
Study DesignSystematic Review.ObjectiveTo describe the historical classifications of thoracolumbar injuries and their evolution into the AO Spine Thoracolumbar Injury Classification System.MethodsA systematic review of MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Databases was performed in keeping with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.Results445 articles were crystallized to 14 included studies. Simple categorization systems offered by Bohler or Watson-Jones merely identify fracture morphology. Holdsworth and Denis conveyed a sense of the stability of injuries by noting columns of stability, but still failed to take into consideration important factors such as neurological status or specific integrity of key stabilizing structures. The AO Spine Thoracolumbar Injury Classification System provides 3 hierarchical categories: type A consisting of compression type injuries, type B composed of distraction injuries and the unstable type C comprising displacement injuries. This communicates the severity of the fracture to clinicians and, with the addition of modifiers, can be synthesised into a scoring system to guide management. This classification is based upon biomechanical stability and increasing likelihood of clinicians offering operative rather than non-operative intervention as fracture severity escalates.ConclusionsA combination of evaluating fracture morphology, integrity of the posterior ligamentous complex and neurological status of the patient in the context of individual patient modifiers is integral to guide surgical decision making. The AO Thoracolumbar Injury Classification System accounts for all of the aforementioned and is the derivative and advancement on existing historical systems. Further nuanced development of scoring systems to guide operative or non-operative management is still required.
研究设计
系统评价。
目的
描述胸腰椎损伤的历史分类及其向AO脊柱胸腰椎损伤分类系统的演变。
方法
按照系统评价和Meta分析的首选报告项目(PRISMA)指南,对MEDLINE、EMBASE和Cochrane数据库进行系统评价。
结果
445篇文章被筛选为14项纳入研究。Bohler或Watson-Jones提供的简单分类系统仅识别骨折形态。Holdsworth和Denis通过指出稳定柱来传达损伤的稳定性,但仍未考虑神经状态或关键稳定结构的特定完整性等重要因素。AO脊柱胸腰椎损伤分类系统提供3个层次类别:A型为压缩型损伤,B型为牵张型损伤,不稳定的C型为移位型损伤。这向临床医生传达了骨折的严重程度,并且通过添加修正符,可以综合成一个评分系统来指导治疗。这种分类基于生物力学稳定性以及随着骨折严重程度的增加临床医生提供手术而非非手术干预的可能性增加。
结论
结合评估骨折形态、后韧带复合体的完整性以及患者在个体患者修正因素背景下的神经状态对于指导手术决策至关重要。AO胸腰椎损伤分类系统考虑了上述所有因素,是现有历史系统的衍生和进步。仍需要对评分系统进行进一步细致的开发以指导手术或非手术治疗。