Learns more about the ioverame dials branch treatments

Association Between Hounsfield Units and Vertebral Body Re-collapse 3 Months After Posterior Fixation for Thoracolumbar Burst Fractures in Working-Age Patients: A Retrospective Register-Based Cohort Study

  • International Journal of Spine Surgery
  • September 2026,
  • 8946;
  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.14444/8946

Abstract

Background Factors associated with early re-collapse after posterior fixation of thoracolumbar burst fractures have been sparsely examined in previous studies. Early re-collapse is challenging to predict due to multifactorial risk. Therefore, we aimed to investigate factors associated with vertebral re-collapse within the first 3 months following posterior fixation.

Methods This retrospective study used data from the Swedish Fracture Register (2015–2019) and included patients aged 18 to 66 years with a single-level thoracolumbar burst fracture between T11 and L3 treated with posterior fixation. Fractures were classified according to the load-sharing classification (LSC) and the 2013 AO Spine Injury Classification System. Bone quality was assessed using Hounsfield unit (HU) values. In addition, postoperative pedicle screw depth within the vertebral body (% depth) and the number of instrumented vertebrae were recorded. To evaluate postoperative vertebral collapse, kyphosis angle, wedge angle, and anterior/posterior vertebral height ratio were measured. Re-collapse was defined as an anterior vertebral height loss of at least 20%, and pedicle screw pull-out was also assessed. Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify factors associated with vertebral re-collapse within 3 months postoperatively.

Results This study comprised 100 patients. Sixteen patients had radiographic vertebral re-collapse, and 15 had pedicle screw pull-out. Lower HU values were significantly associated with vertebral re-collapse (OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.94–0.99, P = 0.01). Higher preoperative LSC scores were also significantly associated with an increased risk of re-collapse (OR: 2.35, 95% CI: 1.07–6.82, P = 0.02). In contrast, neither screw insertion depth nor the number of instrumented vertebrae was associated with re-collapse.

Conclusion Lower HU values and higher preoperative LSC scores were associated with an increased risk of early vertebral re-collapse within 3 months after posterior fixation of thoracolumbar burst fractures. However, early re-collapse appears to be multifactorial and remains difficult to predict, warranting further investigation.

Clinical Relevance This study provides clinically relevant insights into early re-collapse after posterior fixation of thoracolumbar burst fractures and identifies factors associated with early mechanical failure.

Level of Evidence 3.

Introduction

Burst fractures are compression fractures of the vertebral body, characterized by damage to the posterior vertebral wall and at least one of the vertebral endplates.1 They occur most commonly at the thoracolumbar junction, where biomechanical stresses are greatest.2 Accounting for approximately 10% to 20% of all thoracolumbar fractures, burst fractures are particularly common among young men following high-energy trauma.3 Because these injuries frequently result in prolonged disability, chronic pain, and extended sick leave, achieving and maintaining stable fracture reduction is of considerable clinical importance.4 Posterior instrumented fixation is currently the most widely used surgical treatment for thoracolumbar burst fractures.5 However, concerns regarding loss of reduction and implant-related complications have led some surgeons to advocate anterior fusion in patients with severe vertebral body comminution, particularly those with a load-sharing classification (LSC) score ≥7.6,7 Nevertheless, several studies have demonstrated good outcomes with posterior fixation alone, together with a faster return to work compared with combined anterior and posterior procedures, making this approach particularly attractive for working-age patients.8 Despite these advantages, early postoperative re-collapse of a well-reduced vertebral body remains an important complication following posterior fixation. Re-collapse may result in loss of correction, posttraumatic kyphosis, implant failure, and the need for revision surgery.9 Age and preoperative vertebral height loss have been associated with re-collapse after posterior fixation of thoracolumbar burst fracture.9 To reduce the risk of mechanical failure, several surgical strategies have been proposed, including vertebroplasty,10 calcium hydroxyapatite augmentation,11 and insertion of pedicle screws into the fractured vertebra.12,13

The underlying factors associated with early postoperative vertebral re-collapse of burst fracture are not yet fully established and warrant further investigation. Therefore, the aim of this study was to investigate factors associated with vertebral re-collapse within 3 months after posterior fixation of thoracolumbar burst fractures in working-age patients (aged 18–66 years).

Methods

Study Population

This retrospective study included patients registered in the Swedish Fracture Register between 2015 and 2019. The Swedish Fracture Register is a nationwide quality register covering all fracture types in Sweden. Spinal fractures have been recorded since 2015 and are classified according to a modified AO Spine classification system, enabling standardized data collection.14,15 Eligible patients were of working age (18–66 years) and had sustained a single-level thoracolumbar burst fracture between T11 and L3 that was treated with posterior fixation. The surgical approach consisted of either open surgery or percutaneous pedicle screw fixation, with the choice of surgical technique left to the discretion of the treating surgeon. To optimize fixation strength, the largest possible pedicle screws relative to pedicle dimensions were selected and inserted. No posterior column osteotomies, including ponte osteotomies, were performed in this study.

Patients with coexisting fractures in the same-level pedicles or adjacent posterior structures (lamina, transverse, or spinous processes) were eligible if the posterior tension band was patent or indeterminate as determined with computed tomography (CT) and/or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).16 Exclusion criteria included multiple spine fractures, neurological injury beyond a single-level root (spinal cord or cauda equina injury), low-energy trauma (defined as a fall from standing height or less), patients with incomplete radiological imaging postoperatively, and pathological fractures. Information regarding comorbidities, including diabetes, heart disease, and osteoporosis, as well as spine-related reoperations within 1 year, was obtained from the Swedish National Patient Register maintained by the National Board of Health and Welfare.17 Registry linkage was performed using each patient’s unique personal identification number, allowing identification of relevant comorbidities based on ICD-10 codes recorded during inpatient admissions or specialized outpatient visits.

Medical Image Analysis

Medical images were collected from the radiology departments of the participating hospitals. Patients underwent CT and/or MRI within 2 weeks of injury, followed by a postoperative CT scan and either radiographs or a CT scan at the 3-month follow-up, according to local clinical practice. CT and MRI examinations were performed in the supine position, while conventional radiographs were taken in the lateral decubitus position. All images were stored and analyzed using the institutional Picture Archiving and Communication System. Thoracolumbar CT examinations were performed using Siemens Somatom Definition Flash (Siemens AG, Germany) and Canon Aquilion Prime (Canon Medical Systems, Japan) in helical mode with 120 kVp, adaptive tube load, and a slice thickness of 0.6 to 0.7 mm. Multiplanar reconstructions were generated in 3 orientations (1.0–3.0 mm thickness).

The evaluation of kyphosis and vertebral body height assessments was conducted following the methodology outlined by Teng et al.18 Measurements included (1) kyphosis angle (Cobb angle between the superior endplate of the upper vertebra and the inferior endplate of the lower vertebra), (2) wedge angle (angle between the superior and inferior endplates of the fractured vertebra), and (3) the ratio of anterior to posterior vertebral body height (Figure 1). These parameters were assessed preoperatively, immediately postoperatively, and at 3 months postoperatively. Re-collapse was defined as an anterior vertebral height loss of at least 20%, in accordance with a previously published study by Jang et al.9 Although this threshold has not been formally validated, it has been consistently applied in prior radiographic outcome studies.9 The adjusted anterior height was calculated using the height ratio of adjacent vertebrae on immediate postoperative and 3-month postoperative images. Bone quality was assessed using Hounsfield unit (HU) values measured in the L1 vertebral body on the preoperative CT scan. Measurements were obtained using an oval region of interest placed within the trabecular bone on the mid-axial slice (Figure 2). When L1 was fractured, measurements were obtained from L2 instead.19

Figure 1

(A) Computed tomography image immediately after posterior fixation. (B) Radiographs 3 months after surgery on the thoracolumbar area. The height of the collapsed vertebral body was measured at the anterior (AH) and posterior (PH) borders. The kyphosis angle (KA) and wedge angle (WA) were also measured.

Figure 2

Computed tomography images illustrating the measurement of the Hounsfield unit value in a series of axial views of L1 vertebrae.

The depth of pedicle screws within the vertebral body (% depth) was measured postoperatively based on previously described methods by Fujita et al.20 Measurements were performed bilaterally in the most cranial and caudal vertebrae within the fixation segment, and the mean percentage depth was calculated (Figure 3). In addition, the presence of screws inserted into the fractured vertebra was recorded. To minimize observer-related measurement error, 1 spine surgeon (F.B.) and 1 orthopedic resident (S.B.), neither of whom had been involved in the treatment of the study patients, independently evaluated the imaging studies. Interrater reliability for kyphosis angle, wedge angle, anterior/posterior vertebral height ratio, HU measurements, and percent screw depth was assessed using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs). Agreement for screw pull-out, assessed as a binary outcome (present/absent), was evaluated using the Cohen kappa coefficient. Finally, fractures were classified on preoperative CT scan according to the LSC and 2013 AO spine injury classification system.21 According to the AO classification, A3 fractures represent incomplete burst fractures involving 1 endplate and the posterior vertebral wall, whereas A4 fractures are complete burst fractures involving both endplates and the posterior vertebral wall. Posterior ligamentous injury was classified as B0 when the posterior tension band was intact and as B2 when there was complete disruption of the posterior ligamentous complex, with or without an associated posterior bony injury. Patients classified as B2 demonstrated partial disruption of the posterior ligamentous complex involving 1 to 3 of the 4 supporting structures (supraspinous ligament, interspinous ligament, facet joint capsules, and ligamentum flavum). These cases were coded as B2 because of clear evidence of posterior tension band failure, although overall posterior ligamentous complex integrity was considered indeterminate since not all 4 structures were injured. Patients were divided into 2 groups based on their LSC score: 68 patients had an LSC score ≥7, and 16 patients had an LSC score <7. The progression of the kyphosis angle, wedge angle, and anterior/posterior height ratio (A/P height ratio) was then compared between the 2 groups.

Figure 3

The measurement of the percentage depth of the screw insertions was defined as the ratio of the length of the screw in the vertebral body (A) to the length of the anteroposterior length of the vertebral body (B) on the axial computed tomography plan percentage (A/B × 100).

Measurement of Pull-Out of Pedicle Screw From the Vertebral Body

Pedicle screw pull-out was assessed by comparing immediate postoperative images with those obtained at the 3-month follow-up. The most cranial and caudal screws within the fixation vertebrae levels were evaluated. For cases with CT scans available at both time points, pull-out was defined as ≥2 mm screw displacement on axial CT images, in accordance with previously published criteria.22

When only lateral conventional radiographs were available at the 3-month follow-up, pull-out was assessed by comparing the radiographs with sagittal reconstructions from the immediate postoperative CT scan. To minimize observer-related bias, pull-out was independently evaluated by 2 spine surgeons, who were blinded to each other’s assessments. Cases in which the presence of pull-out could not be reliably determined were reviewed by a third reviewer. Five cases (3 radiograph-based and 2 CT-based) remained inconclusive despite this review and were excluded prior to the interrater reliability analysis. Of the included assessments, 86 were based on CT imaging and 9 on follow-up radiographs. In addition, all 9 cases assessed using follow-up radiographs were reviewed by the third reviewer because of the greater difficulty in evaluating screw pull-out using this imaging modality alone. Five cases in which reliable assessment of screw pull-out was not possible were excluded from the analysis. Two cases demonstrated severe rotational deformity on follow-up radiographs, precluding accurate evaluation; 1 case involved rod breakage; 1 had a dislodged set screw; and 1 had a pedicle screw positioned completely outside the pedicle. These cases were excluded to ensure the validity and reliability of the pull-out assessment.

Surgery

All patients underwent posterior instrumented stabilization using either an open or minimally invasive approach. Based on current evidence, pedicle screws were inserted at least 1 level above and 1 level below the fractured vertebra.5 Short-segment fixation, defined as instrumentation 1 level above and 1 level below the fracture, was used in 68 patients, whereas long-segment fixation was used in 31 patients. Intermediate pedicle screws placed in the fractured vertebra were used in 67 cases. In 1 patient, fixation was limited to a single segment. All procedures were performed within 2 weeks of injury by either a consultant orthopedic surgeon or a neurosurgeon specializing in spine surgery. Pedicle screw diameter was not standardized; however, according to routine clinical practice in Sweden, screws with a diameter of 5.0 mm or larger are most commonly used for thoracolumbar posterior fixation. Neither anterior reconstruction nor posterior transpedicular reinforcement of the fractured vertebral body was performed in our cohort.

Statistics Analysis

The Shapiro-Wilk test was used to assess distribution. Normally distributed variables were reported as mean with SD, and non-normally distributed variables were presented as median with interquartile range. Group differences for continuous variables were analyzed using the Mann-Whitney U test, while categorical variables were compared using Fisher exact test. Changes in kyphosis angle, wedge angle, and anterior/posterior vertebral height ratio between preoperative, immediate postoperative, and 3-month postoperative measurements were analyzed using paired t tests. Interrater reliability for kyphosis angle, wedge angle, anterior/posterior vertebral height ratio, HU measurements, and percent screw depth was assessed using ICCs. For screw pullout (binary outcome), interrater reliability was evaluated using Cohen kappa coefficient across all cases with available data. Reliability was interpreted according to the criteria proposed by Landis and Koch, with κ values of 0.00 to 0.20 indicating slight agreement, 0.21 to 0.40 fair agreement, 0.41 to 0.60 moderate agreement, 0.61 to 0.80 substantial agreement, and >0.80 almost perfect agreement.23

A multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed to identify factors associated with anterior vertebral height loss ≥20% at 3 months follow-up. Candidate predictors considered included HU and the LSC. Given the limited number of outcome events, the multivariable model was deliberately restricted to a parsimonious model including only 2 variables: HU and LSC. HU was selected based on its significant association in the univariate comparison, whereas LSC was included based on its established clinical relevance in prior studies. Consequently, both variables were retained in the final multivariable model.

This corresponds to an events-per-variable ratio of 8. Although this is slightly below the commonly recommended threshold of 10 events per variable, this ratio is generally considered acceptable when a limited number of carefully selected predictors are included. Odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated, and statistical significance was defined as P < 0.05. In a subgroup analysis of the entire cohort, progression of kyphosis angle, wedge angle, and A/P height ratio was compared between patients with LSC scores ≥7 and those with LSC scores <7. Statistical analyses were performed using SPSS for Mac (version 29.0; IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA).

Missing Data

Missing data were present for the following imaging variables: percentage depth (12%, 12/100), HU value (14%, 14/100), and LSC (16%, 16/100). For descriptive statistics and subgroup analyses, missing values were treated as blank entries and excluded from the respective analyses. For the multivariable logistic regression analysis, a complete-case approach was applied. Only patients with complete data for the variables included in the final model (HU and LSC) were entered into the regression analysis. This resulted in a final analytical sample of 84 patients.

Results

The patient selection process is presented in Figure 4. A cohort of 100 patients with thoracolumbar burst fractures was included in the study, and their baseline characteristics are summarized in Table 1. Based on the AO spine classification, the most common fracture type was A4 to B0, accounting for 56% of cases. The most frequently injured vertebral level was L1, which represented 51% of all fractures. The median LSC score was 8, exceeding the threshold of 7, where anterior column reconstruction is generally recommended. With regard to implant characteristics, screws inserted into the most cranial fixed vertebra tended to have a greater depth of insertion within the vertebral body than screws placed in the most caudal fixed vertebra. During the first postoperative year, 3 patients underwent additional spine surgery. The indications for reoperation were surgical site infection (n = 1), neurological deterioration (n = 1), and implant failure (n = 1).

View this table:
Table 1

Demographic data.

Interrater Reliability

Interrater agreement was excellent for all continuous radiographic measurements. For HU measurements, the ICC was 0.95 (95% CI 0.93–0.97; P < 0.001), with a corresponding single-measure ICC of 0.91 (95% CI 0.87–0.94; P < 0.001). For percent screw depth, agreement was excellent for averaged measurements (ICC = 0.88; 95% CI 0.78–0.94; P < 0.001), whereas agreement for single measurements was moderate (ICC = 0.65; 95% CI 0.48–0.80; P < 0.001). Interobserver reliability was also excellent for kyphosis and wedge angle measurements, with ICCs of 0.954 (95% CI 0.218–0.988; P < 0.001) and 0.947 (95% CI 0.917–0.966; P < 0.001), respectively. For anterior and posterior vertebral height measurements, the ICCs were 0.899 (95% CI 0.847–0.935; P < 0.001) and 0.856 (95% CI 0.782–0.906; P < 0.001), indicating good to excellent agreement between observers. Interrater agreement for screw pull-out, assessed as a binary outcome, was perfect (κ = 1.00), with no observed discrepancies between reviewers. No apparent differences in agreement were observed between CT-based and radiograph-based assessments.

Postoperative Vertebral Collapse

Table 2 presents data on the surgical correction angle, progression of kyphosis, wedge angles, and the A/P height ratio of vertebral collapse. Immediate postoperative imaging demonstrated significant restoration of vertebral alignment, with the mean kyphosis angle decreasing from 10.7° preoperatively to −2.3° postoperatively, and the mean wedge angle decreasing from 14.7° to 5.9° (both P < 0.001). Despite this initial correction, partial loss of reduction was observed during the first 3 postoperative months. At follow-up, the mean kyphosis angle had increased to 2.9°, while the mean wedge angle had increased to 10.3°. This corresponded to a mean progression of 5.7° in kyphosis angle and 4.4° in wedge angle between the immediate postoperative and 3-month assessments (both P < 0.001). A similar pattern was observed for vertebral body height. Surgery significantly improved the A/P height ratio from 0.68 preoperatively to 0.87 immediately postoperatively (P < 0.001). However, the ratio decreased to 0.76 at the 3-month follow-up, corresponding to a mean loss of 0.10 units (P < 0.001).

View this table:
Table 2

Progression of kyphosis and wedge angle and anterior/posterior height of vertebra collapse.

Evaluation of Screw Pull-Out

A total of 95 patients were included in the screw pull-out analysis. Fifteen (15%) had screw pull-out within 3 months of surgery. Pull-out occurred exclusively in the cranial screw in 8 patients (8.4%), exclusively in the caudal screw in 1 patient (1.1%), and in both cranial and caudal screws in 6 patients (6.3%).

Comparisons Between Patients With and Without Re-collapse

Sixteen patients developed radiographic vertebral re-collapse within 3 months after surgery. Compared with patients without re-collapse, those who experienced re-collapse had significantly lower HU values (median 160 vs 197.5, P = 0.02). In addition, the re-collapse group demonstrated significantly greater progression of kyphotic angle (11.8° vs 4.5°, P < 0.001), wedge angle (10.4° vs 3.3°, P < 0.001), and anterior/posterior vertebral height ratio (0.23 vs 0.08, P < 0.001; Table 3).

View this table:
Table 3

Comparison of the data between the patients with re-collapse and without re-collapse.

No significant differences were observed between the groups with respect to age (P = 0.15), sex (P = 0.42), number of instrumented vertebrae (P = 0.34), the proportion of screws inserted into the fractured vertebra (P = 0.77), or surgical approach (open vs minimally invasive surgery; P = 0.51). Although screw pull-out occurred more frequently in patients with re-collapse (33.3% vs 13.7%), the difference did not reach statistical significance (P = 0.12).

To further explore the potential influence of fracture morphology, patients with AO Spine B2 injuries were analyzed separately. Within the study cohort, 11 patients were classified as A3 to B2 and 17 patients as A4 to B2. Among patients who developed vertebral re-collapse, 4 were classified as A4 to B2, whereas no cases of re-collapse occurred in the A3 to B2 group. However, the incidence of re-collapse did not differ significantly between patients with A4 to B2 injuries and those with other fracture classifications (P = 0.37).

Multivariate Logistic Regression Analysis of Potential Factors Associated With Re-collapse

In the multivariable logistic regression analysis, both lower HU values (OR: 0.97; 95% CI: 0.94–0.99; P = 0.01) and higher LSC scores (OR: 2.35; 95% CI: 1.07–6.82; P = 0.02) were independently associated with vertebral re-collapse at the 3-month follow-up. The results of the multivariable model are presented in Table 4.

View this table:
Table 4

Multivariable logistic regression analysis to identify factors that potentially are risk factors for vertebral re-collapse.

Comparison of Vertebral Collapse at 3 Months Postoperatively Between LSC ≥7 and LSC <7

Among the patients with available LSC data, 16 had LSC scores <7, and 68 had LSC scores ≥7. Patients with LSC scores ≥7 demonstrated significantly greater progression of both wedge angle and A/P vertebral height ratio at the 3-month follow-up compared with patients with LSC scores <7 (both P = 0.04). In contrast, no significant difference was observed in the progression of kyphosis angle between the 2 groups (P = 0.50). Detailed results are presented in Table 5.

View this table:
Table 5

Comparison of the data between patients with LSC ≥ 7 and LSC < 7.

Discussion

Our major finding demonstrated a significant association between lower HU values and early re-collapse following posterior spinal fixation in patients with thoracolumbar burst fractures, including those of working age. Meanwhile, screw insertion depth and the number of instrumented vertebrae were not associated with early re-collapse. Consistent with this finding, previous studies have highlighted the importance of bone quality in maintaining postoperative vertebral stability. Kohno et al reported a 29% re-collapse rate among patients aged 60 to 86 years, concluding that although posterior fixation yielded favorable clinical outcomes, the high rate of postoperative complications was influenced by both poor bone quality and fracture severity.24 These findings underscore the importance of recognizing that, despite posterior fixation, the risk of vertebral re-collapse remains high, particularly in elderly patients with compromised bone quality. In contrast, our study examined working-age adults, of whom only 3 were diagnosed with osteoporosis prior to the vertebral injury.

A recent report defined normal lumbar HU values as ≥170 and osteoporotic values as ≤115. The average L1 HU in this study was 190, indicating a relatively healthy population.25 Nevertheless, a statistically significant association between HU values and re-collapse persisted, suggesting that factors related to bone quality may influence vertebral stability even in patients without established osteoporosis. These findings further emphasize the importance of bone quality assessment, even in a relatively young patient population. Together, these observations support the concept that vertebral HU acts as a continuous indicator of bone quality and mechanical vulnerability, rather than a simple binary marker of osteoporosis.

HU values have been reported not only to correlate with systemic bone mineral density but also to reflect the local trabecular microarchitecture within the vertebral body.26 Furthermore, previous studies have shown that lower lumbar HU values are associated with a graded increase in osteoporotic vertebral fractures and mechanical complications, and each decrement in HU confers a stepwise increase in fracture or complication risk, even within ranges not classified as osteoporotic by conventional thresholds.27

In addition to bone quality, fracture severity was also associated with vertebral re-collapse. Preoperative LSC was significantly associated with re-collapse. The LSC was originally developed to predict screw breakage or indicate the need for anterior reconstruction. It was based on older-generation Steffe plates and screws, without considering soft tissue damage.7 Additionally, LSC does not account for clinical factors such as age and sex, which may influence outcomes.9 Subsequent research has shown that posterior instrumentation alone may suffice, even in cases with high LSC scores, with no clear correlation between LSC and instrumentation failure or correction loss.7 Patients with an LSC score of ≥7 had significantly greater progression of wedge angle and A/P height ratio than those with an LSC score of <7. However, there was no difference in the progression of the kyphosis angle. This apparent discrepancy may be explained by the fact that the LSC primarily reflects the degree of vertebral body comminution and anterior column instability rather than global spinal alignment. In patients with high LSC scores, the fractured vertebral body itself may be more prone to re-collapse, resulting in progressive vertebral height loss and increased wedge deformity. However, posterior instrumentation may effectively maintain overall segmental alignment, thereby preventing a corresponding increase in the kyphosis angle. These findings suggest that vertebral body collapse and segmental kyphosis progression are not necessarily parallel phenomena in the early postoperative period, and posterior fixation alone may preserve sagittal alignment despite ongoing vertebral body collapse, even in cases with high LSC scores.7

In contrast to HU values and LSC scores, the depth of the screws was not associated with re-collapse in the present study. Matsukawa et al found that in cortical bone trajectory-transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion, the fusion group had significantly greater screw insertion depth than the non-fusion group, with a cutoff of 39.2%.28 Hao et al reported that in posterior fixation for lumbar fractures, long screws (with a % depth of ≥80% of the vertebral body) led to better vertebral restoration and sagittal stability than short screws (with a percentage depth of ≤60%).29 In this study, 13.4% (12/89) of screws exhibiting >80% depth were located cephalad, and 9% (8/88) were located caudally; this is a lower percentage than that reported by Hao et al (55.3% [36/65]). However, the fracture site in this study was the thoracolumbar transition area and included more than 3 intervertebral fixation ranges, which may explain these differences in results to some extent.

Although this study focused on radiographic outcomes, early anterior vertebral height loss may have important clinical relevance. Previous studies have suggested that early collapse and progressive deformity after thoracolumbar burst fractures may be associated with persistent back pain, prolonged sick leave, delayed return to work, and in some cases, the need for revision surgery,4 although this association remains unclear. Nevertheless, an anterior height loss of ≥20% at 3 months may serve as an early radiographic indicator of mechanical insufficiency and warrant closer clinical follow-up.

In this context, a growing area of interest in the treatment of traumatic thoracolumbar burst fractures is the use of posterior load-sharing, minimally invasive vertebral body augmentation devices.11,30 Several techniques and implants have been developed to provide internal anterior column support while preserving a posterior-only approach.30–33 These systems aim to improve vertebral body stability, restore or maintain vertebral height, and potentially reduce early postoperative re-collapse.30,34 Although existing studies suggest that such devices may reduce correction loss and implant-related complications, high-quality evidence regarding their effectiveness in preventing early re-collapse remains limited. Given the observed association between bone quality, fracture severity, and vertebral re-collapse, future research should evaluate whether posterior load-sharing devices can reduce the risk of re-collapse in selected patients with poor bone quality or high LSC scores. Although our findings do not establish causality, they suggest that HU values and LSC scores may help identify patients at increased risk of vertebral re-collapse who could potentially benefit from enhanced fixation strategies during surgical planning.

Limitations

Our study has several limitations. First, its retrospective design is susceptible to inherent biases (eg, incomplete documentation) and residual confounding. Second, an important limitation of this study is the relatively small number of vertebral re-collapse events (n = 16), which may limit the robustness and statistical stability of the multivariable logistic regression analysis. Although this approach was used exploratorily, the results should be interpreted with caution due to the potential risk of overfitting. In addition, complete-case analysis was applied for missing data, which may have introduced some degree of selection bias. Another limitation is that postoperative alignment and vertebral height were assessed using nonweight-bearing imaging (supine CT or lateral decubitus radiographs), which may have led to an underestimation of vertebral re-collapse, particularly at the 3-month postoperative time point. Furthermore, only radiographic outcomes were analyzed. Although reoperations within 1 year were recorded, patient-reported outcome measures and assessments of spinal fusion, including flexion-extension radiographs, were not available. Consequently, the clinical significance of early vertebral re-collapse could not be fully evaluated. As this was a register-based study, detailed operative reports were unavailable. Consequently, specific intraoperative techniques could not be assessed. Furthermore, screw pull-out was evaluated using CT when available and plain radiographs otherwise, which may have resulted in some degree of misclassification due to differences in imaging resolution.

Future studies should investigate the relationship between early vertebral re-collapse, patient-reported outcomes, and long-term clinical results. In this context, the ongoing register-based randomized controlled SunBurst trial,35 which includes both radiographic and patient-reported outcome measures, may help clarify the clinical relevance of early vertebral re-collapse.

Conclusion

In a working-age population, lower HU values and higher preoperative LSC scores were associated with an increased risk of early vertebral re-collapse within 3 months after posterior fixation of thoracolumbar burst fractures. However, early re-collapse appears to be multifactorial and remains difficult to predict, warranting further investigation.

Footnotes

  • Funding The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

  • Declaration of Conflicting Interests The authors report no conflicts of interest in this work.

  • Ethics approval The study adhered to the Helsinki Declaration's ethical principles and was approved by the Swedish Ethical Review Authority (approval no: 2021-00011). Informed consent was waived by the Swedish Ethical Review Authority due to retrospective study design and the study based on the Swedish national quality register, which does not require participant consent according to national regulation.

  • Author Contributions J.M. and R.F. initiated the study, analyzed the data, and wrote the manuscript. F.B., M.K., and K.D. analyzed data and reviewed the manuscript. S.B. analyzed the data, authored the manuscript, and supervised the study. J.W., S.M., and T.E. reviewed the manuscript. P.G. initiated the project, supervised the project, and commented on the manuscript.

References

  1. 1.
    ↵
    Holdsworth F. Fractures, dislocations, and fracture-dislocations of the spine. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1970;52(8):1534–1551.
  2. 2.
    ↵
    Wood KB, Li W, Lebl DR, Ploumis A. Management of thoracolumbar spine fractures. Spine J. 2014;14(1):145–164. 10.1016/j.spinee.2012.10.041
  3. 3.
    ↵
    Gnanenthiran SR, Adie S, Harris IA. Nonoperative versus operative treatment for thoracolumbar burst fractures without neurologic deficit: a meta-analysis. Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research. 2012;470(2):567–577. 10.1007/s11999-011-2157-7
  4. 4.
    ↵
    Brandicourt P, Luby N, Djidjeli I, et al. Clinical long-term consequences of thoraco-lumbar spine fracture and osteosynthesis. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2021;107(7):102941. 10.1016/j.otsr.2021.102941
  5. 5.
    ↵
    Chi JH, Eichholz KM, Anderson PA, et al. Congress of neurological surgeons systematic review and evidence-based guidelines on the evaluation and treatment of patients with thoracolumbar spine trauma: novel surgical strategies. Neurosurgery. 2019;84(1):E59–E62. 10.1093/neuros/nyy364
  6. 6.
    ↵
    McCormack T, Karaikovic E, Gaines RW. The load sharing classification of spine fractures. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1994;19(15):1741–1744. 10.1097/00007632-199408000-00014
  7. 7.
    ↵
    Stam WT, Deunk J, Elzinga MJ, Bloemers FW, Giannakopoulos GF. The predictive value of the load sharing classification concerning sagittal collapse and posterior instrumentation failure: a systematic literature review. Global Spine J. 2020;10(4):486–492. 10.1177/2192568219856581
  8. 8.
    ↵
    Hinojosa-Gonzalez DE, Estrada-Mendizabal RJ, Bueno-Gutierrez LC, et al. A network meta-analysis on the surgical management of thoracolumbar burst fractures: anterior, posterior, and combined. Spine Surg Relat Res. 2023;7(3):211–218. 10.22603/ssrr.2022-0196
  9. 9.
    ↵
    Jang H-D, Bang C, Lee JC, et al. Risk factor analysis for predicting vertebral body re-collapse after posterior instrumented fusion in thoracolumbar burst fracture. Spine J. 2018;18(2):285–293. 10.1016/j.spinee.2017.07.168
  10. 10.
    ↵
    Cho D-Y, Lee W-Y, Sheu P-C. Treatment of thoracolumbar burst fractures with polymethyl methacrylate vertebroplasty and short-segment pedicle screw fixation. Neurosurgery. 2003;53(6):1354–1360. 10.1227/01.neu.0000093200.74828.2f
  11. 11.
    ↵
    Marco RAW, Meyer BC, Kushwaha VP. Thoracolumbar burst fractures treated with posterior decompression and pedicle screw instrumentation supplemented with balloon-assisted vertebroplasty and calcium phosphate reconstruction. surgical technique. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2010;92 Suppl 1 Pt 1:67–76. 10.2106/JBJS.I.01236
  12. 12.
    ↵
    Guven O, Kocaoglu B, Bezer M, Aydin N, Nalbantoglu U. The use of screw at the fracture level in the treatment of thoracolumbar burst fractures. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2009;22(6):417–421. 10.1097/BSD.0b013e3181870385
  13. 13.
    ↵
    Kanna RM, Shetty AP, Rajasekaran S. Posterior fixation including the fractured vertebra for severe unstable thoracolumbar fractures. Spine J. 2015;15(2):256–264. 10.1016/j.spinee.2014.09.004
  14. 14.
    ↵
    Möller M, Wolf O, Bergdahl C, et al. The Swedish Fracture Register - ten years of experience and 600,000 fractures collected in a National Quality Register. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2022;23(1):141. 10.1186/s12891-022-05062-w
  15. 15.
    ↵
    Morgonsköld D, Warkander V, Savvides P, et al. Inter- and intra-rater reliability of vertebral fracture classifications in the Swedish fracture register. World J Orthop. 2019;10(1):14–22. 10.5312/wjo.v10.i1.14
  16. 16.
    ↵
    Aly MM, Al-Shoaibi AM, Aljuzair AH, Issa TZ, Vaccaro AR. A proposal for a standardized imaging algorithm to improve the accuracy and reliability for the diagnosis of thoracolumbar posterior ligamentous complex injury in computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging. Global Spine J. 2023;13(3):873–896. 10.1177/21925682221129220
  17. 17.
    ↵
    Ludvigsson JF, Andersson E, Ekbom A, et al. External review and validation of the Swedish national inpatient register. BMC Public Health. 2011;11:450. 10.1186/1471-2458-11-450
  18. 18.
    ↵
    Teng MMH, Wei C-J, Wei L-C, et al. Kyphosis correction and height restoration effects of percutaneous vertebroplasty. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2003;24(9):1893–1900.
  19. 19.
    ↵
    Anderson PA, Polly DW, Binkley NC, Pickhardt PJ. Clinical use of opportunistic computed tomography screening for osteoporosis. The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. 2018;100(23):2073–2081. 10.2106/JBJS.17.01376
  20. 20.
    ↵
    Fujita R, Oda I, Tanaka H, et al. Real-world clinical accuracy of long cortical bone trajectory screw placement using a patient-specific template guide. J Spine Surg. 2024;10(3):468–478. 10.21037/jss-23-122
  21. 21.
    ↵
    Reinhold M, Audigé L, Schnake KJ, Bellabarba C, Dai LY, Oner FC. AO spine injury classification system: a revision proposal for the thoracic and lumbar spine. Eur Spine J. 2013;22(10):2184–2201. 10.1007/s00586-013-2738-0
  22. 22.
    ↵
    Sumiya S, Fukushima K, Kurosa Y, et al. Comparative analysis of clinical factors associated with pedicle screw pull-out during or immediately after surgery between intraoperative cone-beam computed tomography and postoperative computed tomography. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2021;22(1):55. 10.1186/s12891-020-03916-9
  23. 23.
    ↵
    Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977;33(1):159–174. 10.2307/2529310
  24. 24.
    ↵
    Kohno M, Iwamura Y, Inasaka R, et al. Surgical intervention for osteoporotic vertebral burst fractures in middle-low lumbar spine with special reference to postoperative complications affecting surgical outcomes. Neurol Med Chir (Tokyo). 2019;59(3):98–105. 10.2176/nmc.oa.2018-0232
  25. 25.
    ↵
    Courtois EC, Ohnmeiss DD. Assessing bone quality in Hounsfield units using computed tomography: what value should be used to classify bone as normal or osteoporotic? Eur Spine J. 2025;34(2):493–497. 10.1007/s00586-024-08565-3
  26. 26.
    ↵
    Lee H, Park S, Kwack KS, Yun JS. CT and MR for bone mineral density and trabecular bone score assessment in osteoporosis evaluation. Sci Rep. 2023;13(1):16574. 10.1038/s41598-023-43850-z
  27. 27.
    ↵
    St. Jeor JD, Jackson TJ, Xiong AE, et al. Average lumbar Hounsfield units predicts osteoporosis-related complications following lumbar spine fusion. Global Spine J. 2022;12(5):851–857. 10.1177/2192568220975365
  28. 28.
    ↵
    Matsukawa K, Yanai Y, Fujiyoshi K, Kato T, Yato Y. Depth of vertebral screw insertion using a cortical bone trajectory technique in lumbar spinal fusion: radiological significance of a long cortical bone trajectory. J Neurosurg Spine. 2021;35(5):601–606. 10.3171/2021.2.SPINE202229
  29. 29.
    ↵
    Liu H, Chen W, Zhang J, et al. Effects of pedicle screw number and insertion depth on radiographic and functional outcomes in lumbar vertebral fracture. J Orthop Surg Res. 2020;15(1):572. 10.1186/s13018-020-02111-9
  30. 30.
    ↵
    Luo Y, Yang DM, Yang HM, Wu D, Xie FY. Innovative minimally invasive implants for osteoporosis vertebral compression fractures. Front Med (Lausanne). 2023;10:1161174. 10.3389/fmed.2023.1161174
  31. 31.
    ↵
    Chang HK, Kolcun JPG, Chang PY, Wang MY. Enhanced recovery after surgery™ awake minimally-invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: 2-dimensional operative video. Oper Neurosurg. 2019;16(4):519. 10.1093/ons/opy187
  32. 32.
    ↵
    Inamasu J, Guiot BH, Uribe JS. Flexion-distraction injury of the L1 vertebra treated with short-segment posterior fixation and Optimesh. J Clin Neurosci. 2008;15(2):214–218. 10.1016/j.jocn.2006.08.016
  33. 33.
    ↵
    Lam S, Khoo LT. A novel percutaneous system for bone graft delivery and containment for elevation and stabilization of vertebral compression fractures. Technical note. Neurosurg Focus. 2005;18(3):e10. 10.3171/foc.2005.18.3.11
  34. 34.
    ↵
    Verlaan J-J, Dhert WJA, Verbout AJ, Oner FC. Balloon vertebroplasty in combination with pedicle screw instrumentation: a novel technique to treat thoracic and lumbar burst fractures. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2005;30(3):E73–E79. 10.1097/01.brs.0000152162.64015.fb
  35. 35.
    ↵
    Blixt S, Mukka S, Försth P, Westin O, Gerdhem P, SunBurst study group. Study protocol: the SunBurst trial-a register-based, randomized controlled trial on thoracolumbar burst fractures. Acta Orthop. 2022;93:256–263. 10.2340/17453674.2022.1614
View Abstract
Loading
Loading