A comprehensive classification of thoracic and lumbar injuries

journal E pean Original articles © Springer-Verlag1994 Eur Spine J (1994) 3 : 184-201 A comprehensive classification of thoracic and lumbar injuries F. MagerP, M. Aebi 2, S. D. Gertzbein 3, J. Harms 4, and S. Nazarian 5 1Klinik for OrthopSdische Chirurgie, Kantonsspital, St. Gallen, Switzerland 2Division of Orthopaedic Surgery, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada 3Texas Back Institute, Crawford, Texas, USA 4 Rehabilitationskrankenhaus, Kartsbad-Langensteinbach, Germany 5H6spital de la Conception, Marseille, France Summary. In view of the current level of knowledge and the numerous treatment possibilities, none of the existing classification systems of thoracic and lumbar injuries is completely satisfactory. As a result of more than a decade of consideration of the subject matter and a review of 1445 consecutive thoracolumbar injuries, a comprehensive classification of thoracic and lumbar injuries is proposed. The classification is primarily based on pathomorphological criteria. Categories are established according to the main mechanism of injury, pathomorphological uniformity, and in consideration of prognostic aspects regarding healing potential. The classification reflects a progressive scale of morphological damage by which the degree of instability is determined. The severity of the injury in terms of instability is expressed by its ranking within the classification system. A simple grid, the 3-3-3 scheme of the AO fracture classification, was used in grouping the injuries. This grid consists of three types: A, B, and C. Every type has three groups, each of which contains three subgroups with specifications. The types have a fundamental injury pattern which is determined by the three most important mechanisms acting on the spine: compression, distraction, and axial torque. Type A (vertebral body compression) focuses on injury patterns of the vertebral body. Type B injuries (anterior and posterior element injuries with distraction) are characterized by transverse disruption either anteriorly or posteriorly. Type C lesions (anterior and posterior element injuries with rotation) describe injury patterns resulting from axial torque. The latter are most often superimposed on either type A or type B lesions. Morphological criteria are predominantly used for further subdivision of the injuries. Severity progresses from type A through type C as well as within the types, groups, and further subdivisions. The 1445 cases were analyzed with regard to the level of the main injury, the frequency of types and groups, and the incidence of neurological deficit. Most injuries occurred around the thoracolumbar junction. The upper and lower end of the thoraCorrespondence to." F. Magerl, Chirurgie, Kantonsspital, CH-7000 St. Gallen, Switzerland columbar spine and the T10 level were most infrequently injured. Type A fractures were found in 66.1%, type B in 14.5%, and type C in 19.4% of the cases. Stable type A1 fractures accounted for 34.7% of the total. Some injury patterns are typical for certain sections of the thoracolumbar spine and others for age groups. The neurological deficit, ranging from complete paraplegia to a single root lesion, was evaluated in 1212 cases. The overall incidence was 22% and increased significantly from type to type: neurological deficit was present in 14% of type A, 32% of type B, and 55% of type C lesions. Only 2% of the A1 and 4% of the A2 fractures showed any neurological deficit. The classification is comprehensive as almost any injury can be itemized according to easily recognizable and consistent radiographic and clinical findings. Every injury can be defined alphanumerically or by a descriptive name. The classification can, however, also be used in an abbreviated form without impairment of the information most important for clinical practice. Identification of the fundamental nature of an injury is facilitated by a simple algorithm. Recognizing the nature of the injury, its degree of instability, and prognostic aspects are decisive for the choice of the most appropriate treatment. Experience has shown that the new classification is especially useful in this respect. Key words: Thoracic spine - Lumbar spine - Epidemiology A classification should allow the identification of any injury by means of a simple algorithm based on easily recognizable and consistent radiographic and clinical characteristics. In addition, it should provide a concise and descriptive terminology, information regarding the severity o f the injury, and guidance as to the choice of treatment and should serve as a useful tool for furore studies. Although fractures of the spine have been classified for over 50 years [3], it was not until 1949 that Nicoll [33] 185 identified two basic groups of injury: stable and unstable fractures. Holdsworth [21, 22] recognized the importance of the mechanism of injury and thus classified the various patterns of injm:ies into five categories. He also pointed out the significance of the posterior ligament complex for the stability of the spine. Whitesides [46] reorganized the mechanistic classification and in principle defined the twocolumn concept by comparing the spine to a construction crane: the pressure-resistant vertebral bodies and discs (anterior column) correspond to the boom, while the posterior vertebral elements and ligaments (posterior column) with their tensile strength are similar to the guy ropes. In classifying spinal injuries, Lob [27] took prognostic aspects into consideration in terms of later deformity and nonunions, based on extensive studies on cadaver spines. The advent of the lap belt in the early 1960s resulted in greater awareness of another category of injuries, the flexion-distraction lesions [5, 10, 11, 16-18, 20, 23, 35, 43]. Some of these injuries were described even earlier by B6hler [3]. Louis [28] established a morphological classification system using a concept of three columns consisting of the vertebral bodies and the two rows of the articular masses. In addition, he differentiated between transient osseous instability and chronic instability following discoligamentous injuries. Concern regarding the relationship of the vertebral injury to the contents of the spinal canal was expressed by Roy-Camille [36, 37] who described the "segment moyen", referring to the neural ring. He related injury of the segment moyen to instability. Denis [9-11] considered the posterior part of the anterior column to be the key structure as regards instability, at least in flexion. He consequently divided the original anterior column into two by introducing a middle coIumn, stating that "the third column is represented by the structures that have to be torn in addition to the posterior ligament complex in order to create acute instability". McAfee and coworkers [31] combined the individual merits of Denis' classification and that proposed by White and Panjabi [45]. Using CT interpretation, they formulated a simplified classification according to the type of failure of the middle column. Ferguson and Allen [15] based their classification primarily on the mechanism of injury. Each of these classifications have added to the knowledge and understanding of spinal injuries. However, none can be considered all-encompassing in the light of recent developments and the aforementioned criteria. As a consequence, a more comprehensive classification has been developed from the analysis of 1445 cases and is presented here. C o n c e p t o f the c l a s s i f i c a t i o n This classification is primarily based upon the pathomorphological characteristics of the injuries. Categories are formed according to pathomorphological uniformity. The three main categories, the types, have a typical fundamental injury pattern which is defined by a few easily recognizable radiological criteria. Since this pattern clearly re- Table 1. Type A injuries: groups, subgroups, and specifications Type A. Vertebral body compression A]. Impaction fractures A1.1. Endptate impaction A1.2. Wedge impaetion fractures 1 Superior wedge impaction fracture 2 Lateral wedge impaction fracture 3 Inferior wedge impaction fracture A1.3. Vertebral body collapse A2. Split fractures A2.1. Sagittal split fracture A2.2. Coronal split fracture A2.3. Pincer fracture A3. Burst fractures A3.1. Incomplete burst fracture 1 Superior incomplete burst fracture 2 Lateral incomplete burst fracture 3 Inferior incomplete burst fracture A3.2. Burst-split fracture 1 Superior burst-split fracture 2 Lateral burst-split fracture 3 Inferior burst-split fracture A3.3. Complete burst fracture 1 Pincer burst fracture 2 Complete flexion burst fracture 3 Complete axial burst fracture Table 2. Type B injuries: groups, subgroups, and specifications Type B. Anterior and posterior element injury with distraction B1. Posterior disruption predominantly ligamentous (flexiondistraction injury) Bl.1. With transverse disruption of the disc 1 Flexion-subluxation 2 Anterior dislocation 3 Flexion-subluxation/anterior dislocation with fracture of the articular processes B1.2. With type A fracture of the vertebral body t Flexion-subluxation + type A fracture 2 Anterior dislocation + type A fracture 3 Flexion-subluxation/anterior dislocation with fracture of the articular processes + type A fracture B2. Posterior disruption predominantly osseous (j%xiondistraction injury) B2.1. Transverse bicolumn fracture B2.2. With transverse disruption of the disc 1 Disruption through the pedicle and disc 2 Disruption through the pars interarticularis and disc (flexion-spondylolysis) B2.3. With type A fracture of the vertebral body 1 Fracture through the pedicle + type A fracture 2 Fracture through the pars interarticularis (flexionspondylolysis) + type A fracture B3. Anterior disruption through the disc (hyperextension-shear injury) B3.1. Hyperextension-subluxations 1 Without injury of the posterior column 2 With injury of the posterior column B3.2. Hyperextenion-spondylolysis B3.3. Posterior dislocation 186 Table 3. Type C injuries: groups, subgroups, and specifications Type C. Anterior and posterior element injury with rotation C1. Type A injuries with rotation (compression injuries with rotation) C I. 1. Rotational wedge fracture C 1.2, Rotational split fractures 1 Rotational sagittal split fracture 2 Rotational coronal split fracture 3 Rotational pincer fracture 4 Vertebral body separation C 1.3. Rotational burst fractures 1 Incomplete rotational burst fracture 2 Rotational burst-split fracture 3 Complete rotational burst fracture C2. Type B injuries with rotation C2,1 - B 1 injuries with rotation (flexion-distraction injuries with rotation) 1 Rotational flexion subluxation 2 Rotational flexion subtuxation with unilateral articular process fracture 3 Unilateral dislocation 4 Rotational anterior dislocation without/with fracture of articular processes 5 Rotational flexion subluxation without/with unilateral articular process fracture + type A fracture 6 Unilateral dislocation + type A fracture 7 Rotational anterior dislocation without/with fracture of articular processes + type A fracture C2.2 B2 injm'ies with rotation (flexion distraction injuries with rotation) 1 Rotational transverse bicolumn fracture 2 Unilateral flexion spondylolysis with disruption of the disc 3 Unilateral flexion spondylolysis + type A fracture C2,3 - B3 injuries with rotation (hyperextension-shear injuries with rotation) 1 Rotational hyperextension-subluxation without/with fracture of posterior vertebral elements 2 Unilateral hyperextension-spondylolysis 3 Posterior dislocation with rotation C3. Rotational-shear injuries C3.1 Slice fracture C3.2. Oblique fracture flects the effect of forces or moments, three simple mechanisms can be identified as common denominators of the types: (1) compressive force which causes compression and burst injuries; (2) tensile force which causes injuries with transverse disruption; and (3) axial torque which causes rotational injuries. Morphological criteria are used to classify each main type further into distinct groups. By using more detailed morphological findings, identification of subgroups and even further specification is possible, providing an accurate description of almost any injury. In order to provide a simple grid for the classification, the one used for the AO fracture classification [32] has been adopted here. This grid consists of three types with three groups, each of which contains three subgroups and further specifications (Tables 1-3). Within this classification the injuries are hierachically ranked according to progressive severity. Thus, severity progresses from type A to type C, and similarly within each type, group, and further subdivision. Ranking of the injuries was primarily determined by the degree of instability. Prognostic aspects were taken into consideration as far as possible. Remarks. The term "column" used in the following text refers to the two-column concept as described by Whitesides [46]. Isolated transverse or spinous process fractures are not considered in this classification. Classification of thoracic and lumbar injuries Common characteristics of the types (Fig. 1): Type A injuries focus on fractures of the vertebral body. The posterior column is, if at all, only insignificantly injured. Type B injuries describe transverse disruptions with elongation of the distance between the posterior (B 1, B2) or anterior (B3) vertebral elements. In addition, B 1 and B2 injuries are subgrouped depending on the type of anterior injury. This may be a rupture of the disc or a type A fracture of the vertebra. These type B injuries are diagnosed by the posterior injury but are further subdivided by a description of the anterior lesion. Type C focuses on injury patterns resulting from axial torque which is most often superimposed on either type A or type B lesions, Type A and type B injuries therefore form the basis for further subgrouping of most of the type C injuries. In addition, shearing injuries associated with torsion are described in the type C category. Type A lesions only affect the anterior column, whereas type B and C lesions represent injuries to both columns. Type A: vertebral body compression Common characteristics: The injuries are caused by axial compression with or without flexion and affect almost exclusively the vertebral body. The height of the vertebral body is reduced, and the posterior ligamentous complex is intact. Translation in the sagittal plane does not occur. Group AI: Impaction fractures Common characteristics: The deformation of the vertebral body is due to compression of the cancellous bone rather than to fragmentation. The posterior column is intact. Narrowing of the spinal canal does not occur. The injuries are stable, and neurological deficit is very rare (Table 5). • A . I . I : Endptate impaction (Fig.2). The endplate often has the shape of an hourglass. Minor wedging of up to 5 deg may be present. The posterior wall of the vertebral body is intact. The injury is most often seen in juvenile and osteoporotic spines. • A.1.2: Wedge impactionfracture (Fig.3). The loss of anterior vertebral height results in an angulation of more than 5 degrees. The posterior wall of the vertebral body remains intact. The loss of height may occur in the upper part of the vertebral body (superior wedge fracture), in the inferior part of the vertebral body (inferior wedge fracture), or anterolaterally (lateral wedge fracture). The last is associated with a scoliotic deformity. I87 B A C cur as an accompanying lesion of rotational burst fractures. C D Fig. 1. Essential characteristics of the three injury types: A Type A, compression injury of the anterior column; B Type B, two-column injury with either posterior or anterior transverse disruption; C Type C, two-column injury with rotation • A.t.3: Vertebral body collapse (Fig.4). This injury is usually observed in osteoporotic spines. There is symmetrical loss of vertebral body height without significant extrusion of fragments. The spinal canal is not violated. When combined with pronounced impaction of the endplates, the vertebral body has the shape of a 'fish vertebra'. Severe compression of the vertebral body may be associated with extrusion of fragments into the spinal canal and thus with injury to the spinal cord or cauda equina [1, 30, 39, 41]. Since those fractures show characteristics of burst fractures, they should be classified accordingly. Group A2: Split fractures Common characteristics: As described by Roy-Camille et al. [37], the vertebral body is split in the coronal or sagittal plane with a variable degree of dislocation of the main fragments. When the main fragments are significantly dislocated, the gap is filled with disc material which may result in a nonunion [24, 37]. Neurological deficit is uncommon (Table 5). The posterior column is not affected. • A2.1: SagittaI split fracture. These fractures are extremely rare in the thoracolumbar spine. They usually oc- • A2.2: Coronal spIitfi'acture (Fig. 5). The smooth coronal fracture gap is narrow. The posterior vertebral body wall remains intact, and the injury is stable. • A2.3: Pincer fracture (Fig. 6). The central part of the vertebral body is crushed and filled with disc material. The anterior main fragment is markedly dislocated anteriorly. The resistance to flexion compression is reduced, and pseudoarthrosis is likely to occur. Group A3: Burst fractures Common characteristics: The vertebral body is partially or completely comminuted with centrifugal extrusion of fragments. Fragments of the posterior wall are retropulsed into the spinal canal and are the cause of neural injury. The posterior ligamentous complex is intact. The injury to the arch, if present, is always a vertical split through the lamina or spinous process. Its contribution to instability is negligible. However, cauda fibers extruding through a tear outside the dura may become entrapped in the lamina fracture [13]. Superior, inferior, and lateral variants occur in burst fractures with partial comminution (A3.1, A3.2). In lateral variants with marked angulation in the frontal plane, a distractive lesion may be present on the convex side (compare Denis 1983; Fig. liE). The frequency of neural injury is high (Table 5) and increases significantly from subgroup to subgroup. • A3.1: Incomplete burst fracture (Fig.7). The upper or lower half of the vertebral body has burst, while the other half remains intact. The stability of these injuries is reduced in flexion-compression. In particular, fragments of the posterior wall of the vertebral body may be further retropulsed into the spinal canal when the injury is exposed to flexion/compression [46]. ® A3.2: Burst-split fracture (Fig. 8). In this injury, mentioned by Denis [10] and described extensively by Lindahl et al. [26], one-half of the vertebra (most often the upper half) has burst, whereas the other is split sagittally. The lamina or spinous processes are split vertically. Burstsplit fractures are more unstable in flexion-compression 188 3 4 6 7 ~i!i~iii~ii~i '¸ ~ii~"~i y , h Fig, 2. Endplate impaction (A1.1) Fig.3. Superior wedge fracture (A1.2.1) kyphotic angulation of the spine. The lamina or spinous processes are split vertically. Fig.4. Vertebral body collapse (A1.3) - A3.3.3: Complete, axial burst fracture (Fig. 9). The height Fig.5. Coronal split fracture (A2.2) of the comminuted vertebral body is more or less evenly reduced. The lamina or spinous processes are split vertically. Fig.6. Pincer fracture (A2.3) Fig. 7. Superior incomplete burst fracture (A3.1.1) Common local clinical findings and radiological signs of type A injuries and are more frequently accompanied by neurological injury than incomplete burst fractures. Stable type A injuries may cause only moderate pain, so that patients are still able to walk. Unstable injuries are accompanied by significant pain and reduction of the patients' mobility. Marked wedging of the vertebral body produces a clinically visible gibbus. Posterior swelling and subcutaneous hematoma are not found since the injury to the posterior column, if at all present, does not involve the surrounding soft tissues. There is only tenderness at the level of the fracture. The specific radi01ogical appearances of the various type A injuries are shown in Figs. 2-9. Common radiological findings include: loss of vertebral body height, most often anteriorly, resulting in a kyphotic deformity; shortening of the posterior wall of the vertebral body, when fractured; a vertical split in the lamina accompanied by an • A3.3: Complete burst fracture. The entire vertebral body has burst. Complete burst fractures are unstable in flexion-compression. Flexion and compression may result in an additional loss of vertebral body height. The spinal canal is often extremely narrowed by posterior wall fragments, and the frequency of neural injuries is accordingly high. - A 3 . 3 . t : P i n c e r burst fracture. In contrast to the simple pincer fracture (A2.3), the posterior wall of the vertebral body is fractured with fragments retropulsed into the spinal canal. The vertebral arch usually remains intact. - A3.3.2: Complete f l e x i o n burst fracture. The comminuted vertebral body is wedge-shaped, resulting in a 189 A D B E increase of the horizontal distance between the pedicles (Figs. 8, 9); a vertical distance between the spinous processes is only somewhat increased in pronounced wedgeshaped fractures with an intact posterior wall. A significantly increased interspinous distance may well indicate the presence of a posterior distraction injury. Fragments of the posterior wall are furthermore only displaced posteriorly into the spinal canal but not cranially and without significant rotation around the transverse axis (Figs. 7-9). On a computed tomography (CT) scan, these fragments have a dense and smooth posterior border and appear blurred anteriorly. Translational dislocation in the horizontal plane does not occur in type A injuries. Type B: anterior and posterior element injuries with distraction Common characteristics: The main criterion is a transverse disruption of one or both spinal columns. Flexiondistraction initiates posterior disruption and elongation (groups B 1 and B2), and hyperextension with or without anteroposterior shear causes anterior disruption and elongation (group B3). In B1 and B2 injuries, the anterior lesion may be through the disc or a type A fracture of the vertebral body. Thus, type A fractures reoccur in these two groups, and the adjunction of their description is necessary for a complete definition of the injury'. More severe B1 and B2 lesions may involve the erector spinae muscles or both these muscles and their fascia. Thus, the posterior disruption may extend into the subcutaneous tissue. C Fig. 8. Superior burst-split fracture (A3.2.1): A-C Appearance on standard radiographs, note the increased interpedicular distance (B arrows); D, E CT scan of the upper and lower part of the vertebral body Translational dislocation in the sagittal direction may be present, and if not seen on radiographs, the potential for sagittal translocation should nonetheless be suspected. The degree of instability ranges from partial to complete, and the frequency of neurological impairment is altogether significantly higher than in type A injuries (Table 5). Group B 1: Posterior disruption predominantly ligamentous Common characteristics (Fig. 16): The leading feature is the disruption of the posterior ligamentous complex with bilateral subluxation, dislocation, or facet fracture. The posterior injury may be associated with either a transverse disruption of the disc or a type A fracture of the vertebral body. Pure flexion-subluxations are only unstable in flexion, whereas pure dislocations are unstable in flexion and shear. B 1 lesions associated with an unstable type A compression fracture of the vertebral body are additionally unstable in axial loading. Neurological deficit is frequent and caused by translational displacement and/or vertebral body fragments retropulsed into the spinal canal. • B I . I : Posterior disruption predominantly ligamentous associated with transverse disruption of the disc. - B I . t . t : Flexion subluxation (Fig. 10A). In this purely discoligamentous lesion, a small fragment not affecting the stability may be avulsed by the annulus fibrosus from the posterior or anterior rim of the endplate. Neurological deficit is uncommon. - B t . t . 2 : Anterior dislocation (Fig. 10B). This purely discoligamentous lesion with a complete dislocation of the facet joints is associated with anterior translational 190 Fig. 9. Complete axial burst fracture (A3,3.3): A, B Appearance on standard radiographs, note the increased interpedicular distance (arrows); C, D CT scan of the upper and lower part of the vertebral body Fig. 10. Examples of posterior disruption (predominantly ligamentons) associated with an anterior lesion through the disc (BI.1): A flexion subluxation (BI.I.1); B anterior dislocation (B 1.1.2); C anterior dislocation with fracture of the articular processes (B 1.1.3) 9A B C D 10A B displacement and narrowing of the spinal canal. The injury is rarely seen in the thoracolumbar spine [8, 47]. - B1.t.3: Flexion subluxation or anterior dislocation with fracture of the articular processes (Fig. 10C). Either of the previously mentioned B 1.1 lesions can be associated with bilateral facet fracture, resulting in a higher degree of instability, especially in anterior sagittal shear. • B1.2: Posterior disruption predominantly ligamentous associated with type A fracture o f the vertebral body. This combination might occur if the transverse axis of the flexion moment lies close to the posterior wall of the vertebral body. A severe flexion moment may then cause a transverse disruption of the posterior column and simultaneously a compression injury to the vertebral body which corresponds to an type A fracture. C - Bt.2.1: Flexion subtuxation associated with type A fracture (Fig. 11). The injury is unstable in flexion and axial compression. The latter corresponds to the impaired compression resistance of the vertebral body. Normally, the subluxation occurs in the upper facet joints (Fig. 11) of the fractured vertebra. Some cases of burst fractures have been reported in which the inferior facet joints were subluxed [25]. Neural injury may be due to kyphotic angulation or to fragments retropulsed into the spinal canal. - B1.2.2: Anterior dislocation associated with a type A fracture (Fig. 12A). The degree of instability as well as the risk of neural injury are higher than in the previously described injuries. - B1.2.3: Flexion subluxation or anterior dislocation with bilateral facet fracture associated with type A frac- 191 11A B C 12A B 13 Fig. 11. Examples of posterior disruption predominantly ligamentous with subluxation of the facet joints associated with a type A fracture of the vertebral body (B1.2.1): A flexion subluxation associated with a superior wedge fracture (B1.2.1 + A1.2A); B flexion subluxation associated with a pincer fracture (B1.2.1 + A2.3); C flexion subluxation associated with an incomplete superior burst fracture (B1.2.1 + A3.1.1) Fig. 12. Examples of posterior disruption predominantly ligamentous associated with a type A fracture of the vertebral body: A anterior dislocation associated with a superior wedge fracture (B 1.2.2 + At .2.1); B anterior subluxation with fracture of articular processes associated with a complete burst fracture (B1.2.3 + A3.3) Fig. 13. Transverse bicolumn fracture (B2.1) ture (Fig. 12B). In the thoracic spine, this posterior injury is often combined with a complete burst fracture. The fracture of the articular process may extend into the pedicle. Some anterior translation is commonly present. The injury is very unstable, especially in anterior shear, and is frequently associated with complete paraplegia. Group B2: Posterior disruption predominantly osseous Common characteristics (Fig. 16): The leading criterion is a transverse disruption of the posterior column through the laminae and pedicles or the isthmi. Interspinous and/or supraspinous ligaments are torn. As in the B 1 group, the posterior lesion may be associated with either a transverse disruption of the disc or a type A fracture of the vertebral body. However, there is no vertebral body lesion within type A that would correspond to the transverse bicolumn fracture. Except for the transverse bicolumn fracture, the degree of instability as well as the incidence of neurological deficit are slightly higher than in B 1 injuries. Injuries belonging to this category have already been described by B6hler [3], who referred to a scheme designed by Heuritsch in t933. • B2.1: Transverse bicolumn fracture (Fig. 13). This pm'ticular lesion was first published in the English-language literature by Howland et al. [23] and illustrated even earlier by B6hler [3]. The transverse bicolumn fracture usually occurs in the upper segments of the lumbar spine and is unstable in flexion. As it is a purely osseous lesion, it has excellent healing potential. Neurological deficit is uncommon. • B2.2: Posterior disruption predominantly osseous with transverse disruption of the disc. - B2.2.1: Disruption through the pedicle and disc (Fig. 16). This rare variant is characterized by a horizontal frac- 192 Posterior Lesion Anterior Lesion ~liii': I'~¸¸~ B1 B2 14 15 17A B C Fig.14. Posterior disruption predominantly osseous associated with an anterior lesion through the disc: flexion spondylolysis (B2.2.2) ture through the arch that exits inferiorly through the base o f the pedicle. Fig.15. Posterior disruption predominantIy osseous associated with a type A fracture of the vertebral body: flexion spondylolysis associated with an inferior incomplete burst fracture (B2.3,2 + A3.1.3) - B2.2.2: Disruption through the pars" interarticularis and disc (flexion spondylolysis) (Fig. 14). A flexion spondylolysis with minimal displacement is less likely to result in neurological deficit. However, displaced fractures with pronounced flexion-rotation o f the vertebral body around the transverse axis are frequently combined with neural injury. This is due to narrowing o f the spinal canal as the posterior inferior corner of the vertebral b o d y approaches the lamina. In flexion-distraction injuries (B1-B2), the injury of the posterior column may be associated with either a rupture of the disc or a type A fracture of the vertebral body, Exception: the transverse bicolumn fracture Fig.16. Fig. 17. Examples of anterior disruption through the disc (hyperextension-shear injuries): A hyperextension - subluxation without fracture of posterior vertebral elements (B3.1.1); B hyperextension - spondylolysis (B3.2) in the lower lumbar spine (cf. text); C posterior dislocation (B3.3) • B2.3: Posterior disruption predominantly osseous associated with type A fracture o f the vertebral body - B2.3.1: Fracture through the pedicle associated with a type A fracture. The posterior injury is the same as described for B2.2.1. 193 - B2.3.2: Fracture through the isthmus associated with a type A fracture (Fig. 15). The posterior injury is the same as described for B2.2.2. The anterior column lesion is often an inferior variant of a type A fracture. Common local clinical findings and radiological signs of B 1 and B2 injuries Marked tenderness, swelling, and subcutaneous hematoma at the site of the posterior injury as well as a palpable gap between the spinous processes are highly indicative of a distractive posterior lesion. Kyphotic deformity may be present. A step in the line of the spinous processes indicates anterior translational displacement. A variety of radiographic signs are typical of B 1 and B2 injuries (cf. Figs. 10-15): kyphotic deformity with significantly increased vertical distance between the two spinous processes at the level of the injury; anterior translational displacement; bilateral subluxation, dislocation, or bilateral fracture of the facet joints; horizontal or bilateral fracture of other posterior vertebral elements; avulsion of the posterior edge of the vertebral body; anterior shear~chip fracture of an endplate; avulsion fracture of the supraspinous ligament from the spinous process. In B1 and B2 injuries associated with burst-type fractures, the fragment of the posterior wall of the vertebral body is often displaced not only posteriorly but also cranially (Fig. 11 C). It is sometimes rotated up to 90 deg around the transverse axis so that its surface consisting of the posterior part of the endplate faces the vertebral body. Unlike type A burst fractures, the anterior border of the fragment will then appear dense and smooth on a CT scan, while its posterior contour is blurred. This phenomenon may be called the 'inverse cortical sign.' Group B3: Anterior disruption through the disc In the rare hyperextension-shear injuries, the transverse disruption originates anteriorly and may be confined to the anterior column or may extend posteriorly. Severe anteroposterior shear causes disruption of both columns. Denis and Burkns [14] saw a variety of hyperextensionshear injuries due to direct trauma to the spine from behind. The anterior lesion was always through the disc. In the majority of cases, the posterior injury consisted of fractures of articular processes, lamina, or pars interarticularis. Eleven of 12 injuries were located in the thoracic spine and the thoracolumbar junction, and 11 patients suffered complete paraplegia. Sagittal translational displacement is not uncommon in these injuries. Anterior displacement can occur in B3.1 and B3.2 injuries, whereas posterior displacement is typical for the B3.3 subgroup. • B3.1: Hyperextension-subluxation (Fig. 17A). A spontaneously reduced, pure discoligamentous injury is difficult to diagnose. The presence of such an injury may be indicated by widening of the disc space and can be confirmed by magnetic resonance imaging scans [14]. Discography may be helpful in the lumbar spine. Hyperextension-subluxations are sometimes associated with a fracture of the lamina or articular processes [14], or with a fracture of the basis of the pedictes [7]. ® B3.2: Hyperextension-spondylolysis (Fig. 17B). The few cases seen by us were located in the lowermost lumbar level. In contrast to flexion-spondyIolysis, the sagittal diameter of the spinal canal was widened in these cases, as the vertebral body had shifted anteriorly, while the lamina remained in place. Consequently, there was no neurological deficit. The cases described by Denis and Burkus [14] occurred in the thoracic spine and were associated with severe neurological deficit. • B.3.3: Posterior dislocation (Fig. 17C). This is one of the severest injuries of the lumbar spine and is often associated with complete paraplegia. Lumbosacral posterior dislocations probably have a better prognosis [8]. Common local clinical findings and radiological signs of B3 injuries Posterior tenderness, swelling, and subcutaneous hematoma are usually found in all injuries caused by a direct trauma to the back and other B3 lesions associated with significant injury to the posterior column and the surrounding soft tissues. The radiological signs and diagnostic possibilities have already been described earlier in this chapter, except for the avulsion and shear-chip fragments from endplates which can occur in all type B3 injuries [7]. Type C: anterior and posterior element injuries with rotation Out of the multitude of injury patterns, three groups of which each contains injuries with similar morphological patterns have been identified: (1) type A with superimposed rotation, (2) type B with superimposed rotation, and (3) rotation-shear injuries. Apart from a few exceptions, rotational injuries represent the severest injuries of the thoracic and lumbar spine and are associated with the highest rate of neurological deficit (Table 5). Neural injury is caused by fragments dislocated into the spinal canal and/or by the encroachment of the spinal canal resulting from translational displacement. Common characteristics include two-column injury; rotational displacement; potential for translational displacement in all directions of the horizontal plane; disruption of all longitudinal ligaments and of discs; fractures of articular processes, usually unilateral; fracture of transverse processes; rib dislocations and/or fractures close to the spine; lateral avulsion fracture of the endplate; irregular fractures of the neural arch; and asymmetrical fractures of the vertebral body. These findings, typical sequelae of axial torque, are associated with the fundamental pattern of type A and B lesions, which can still be discerned. Since type A and B lesions have already been discussed in detail, the description of type C injuries can be confined to common characteristics and the special features of some injuries. Group C 1: Type A with rotation This group contains rotational wedge, split, and burst fractures (Figs. 18-20). In type A lesions with rotation, one lateral wall of the vertebral body often remains intact. 194 B 18A 19A B C C Fig. 18 A-C. Example of a type A fracture with rotation: rotational wedge fracture (C1. l) Fig.19. Vertebral body separation (C1.2.4): A, B appearance on standard radiographs; C CT scans of the fractured vertebrae Therefore, a normal contour of a vertebral body (phantom vertebra) may radiographically appear in the lateral profile together with the fracture (Figs. 18 and 20). As already mentioned, a sagittal split fracture (C1.2.1) may occur adjacent to a rotational burst fracture as a consequence of the axial torque. The vertebral body separation (C 1.2.4) represents a contiguous, multilevel, coronal split lesion (Fig. 19). In this injury the spinal canal may be widened where it is involved in the lesion. The five patients treated by us as well as cases published to date [4, t9, 40, 42] suffered no neurological deficit. locations at the lumbosacral junction, and Roy-Camille et al. [38] report anterior dislocation with rotation and unilateral facet fracture. Amongst distraction fractures of the lumbar spine, Gumley et al. [20] describe an injury which corresponds to the transverse bicolumn fracture with rotation (Fig. 23). Group C2: Type B with rotation The most commonly seen C2 lesions are different variants of flexion-subluxation with rotation (Fig.21). Of the lateral distraction injuries published by Denis and Burkus [12], we would ascribe at least one to type B with rotation. Unilateral dislocations are less frequent (Fig. 22). Boger et aI. [2] and Conolly et al. [6] describe unilateral facet dis- Group C3: Rotational shear injuries Holdsworth [22] stated that the slice fracture (Fig. 24) is "very common in the thoracolumbar and lumbar regions and is by far the most unstable of all injuries of the spine." With regard to frequency, this does not correspond with our experience, which is limited to three cases. Thirteen of our 16 C3 injuries were oblique fractures (Fig.25). In our opinion, the oblique fracture is even more unstable than the slice fracture, as it completely lacks stability in compression. However, the slice fracture is obviously more dangerous to the spinal cord because of the shear in the horizontal plane. 195 20A B C Fig.20A-C. Example of a type A fracture with rotation: complete burst fracture with rotation (C1.3.3). A Vertebral body; B posterior elements; C lateral view 21A '-' Fig.21A, B. Example of a type B injury with rotation: rotational flexion-subluxation (C2.1.1). A Lateral view; B posterior elements B C o m m o n clinical findings and radiological signs of type C injuries The type of accident, e.g., a fall from a great height, injuries caused by a heavy object falling on the bent back, or when the patient was thrown some distance, may be enough to suggest that axial torque was involved in the mechanism of injury. Local findings are the same as those described for type B injuries. The radiological appearance of the various type C injuries is shown in Figs. 18-25, and the characteristic signs of rotation have been described above. Fractures of transverse processes are the principal indicator of rotational injuries of the lumbar spine. Therefore, even if they seem isolated, their presence should always trigger an intense search for a hidden type C injury. Epidemiological data The 1445 cases investigated were also analyzed with regard to (1) the level of the main injury, (2) the frequency of the types and groups, and (3) the incidence of the neurological deficit related to types and groups. A more detailed analysis of the epidemiological data is the subject of another study to be published. Level of main injury Figure 26 demonstrates the distribution of the level of the m o n o s e g m e n t a l lesions and the level of the m a i n injury in multisegmental injuries. As expected, m o s t injuries were located around the thoracolumbar junction. The upper and lower end of the thoracolumbar spine as well as the T10 level were the areas m o s t infrequently injured. Injuries to the spine often involve more than one segment, especially in polytraumatized patients [34]. Of the 468 consecutive cases which were analyzed in more detail, 23% had multisegmental injuries of the thoracolumbar spine, 196 22A 22B 23A 23B 24A 24B Fig.22A, B. Example of a type B injury with rotation: unilateral dislocation (C2.1.3). A Lateral view; B posterior elements Fig.23A, B. Example of a type B injury with rotation: transverse bicolumn fracture with rotation (C2.2.1). A Anterior elements; B lateral view Fig.24A, B. Rotational shear injury: Holdsworth slice fracture (C3.1). A Lateral view; B anterior view Fig.25. Rotational shear injury: oblique fracture of the vertebra (C3.2) Frequency and distribution of types and groups 25 Type A fractures represented two-thirds of all injuries (Table 4). Type B and C lesions, although they encompass a great variety of injuries, altogether only accounted for one-third. Stable type A injuries alone exceeded more than one-third of the total. Detailed analysis of the 468 cases mentioned above revealed that the frequency of type A injuries decreases 197 T+ +S Table 5, Incidence of neurological deficit in i212 patients T2 ]3 T 3 ~17 Types and groups T 4 3 0 T5 44 T 6 7O T 7 160 T 8 57 Type A 890 14% 501 45 344 2% 4% 32% 145 32% 61 82 2 30% 33% 50% 177 99 62 16 55% 53% 60% 50% 1212 22% 3 5 Type B T10 ~21 B1 B2 B3 45 T12 ~'}~ ~ } ~ @5~,i.::' 2 ;<,:: L 1 ::~: [.:fs?; '::;,.~, L 2 ~")~ :£+,~ ~ ' L 3 i::: :ii: ,'"/2 :: L 4 246 +!:.2: : ;': :;;;,; 5 : ~::: 402 Type C 208 " : ) J 114 C1 C2 C3 59 L 5 29 i 50 t ] 100 150 200 .... ~ - - @ - - - - - - 250 300 I I 350 400 450 Total Fig.26. The main level of injury in 1445 patients Fractureof the t~,._ ~ Vertebr~ --------~ [ RuptureFracture gaments Disruption of the Disc l Table 4. Number and percentage of injuries per type and group (n = 1445) Percentage of total Type A 956 66.16% At A2 A3 502 50 404 34.74% 3.46% 27.96% Type B 209 14.46% B1 B2 B3 126 80 3 8.72% 5,54% 0.21% Type C 280 19.38% C1 C2 C3 156 108 16 10.80% 7.47% 1.11% t¥om cranial to caudal, whereas type C injuries are more frequently located in the lumbar spine, and type B injuries are more often found around the thoracotumbar junction. Also, the groups of the type A injuries showed some predilection for certain sections of the thoracolumbar spine: split fractures only occurred below T10; burst fractures as a whole were more often found below T12; and the frequent burst-split fractures were only seen below T11. Incidence o f neurological deficit Fig.27. Algorithm for determination of the injury types Case Neurological deficit A1 A2 A3 T 9 T11 Number of injuries Percentage of type 52.51% 5.23% 42.26% 60.29% 38.28% t.44% 55.71% 38.57% 5.71% The neurological deficit, ranging from complete paraplegia to single root lesions, was evaluated in 1212 patients (Table 5). The overall incidence was 22% and increased significantly from type to type. Neurological deficit is very rare in A1 and A2 injuries. Neural injury of A1 fractures may be attributed to severe kyphotic angulation resulting from multisegmental wedge fractures in the thoracic spine [31]. However, it may also be possible that some wedge fractures of the thoracic spine were in fact hidden B1.2 injuries in which the posterior lesion was not discernible on standard radiographs. The striking increase of neural injury between the A2 and the A3 group may be attributed to the high proportion of severe burst fractures in the A3 group. This high proportion of severe burst fractures also accounts for the fact that the frequency of neural injury in the A3 group is similar to that in the B 1 and B2 groups. Another reason for this similarity may be that anterior dislocation with its high risk of neural injury rarely occurs in the thoracotumbar spine. An explanation for the decrease of neurological deficits from the C2 to the C3 group can be found in the rather small number of the neurologically most dangerous Holdsworth slice fractures in group C3 of this series. Discussion A classification of spinal injuries should meet several requirements. It should be clearly and logically structured 198 and should furthermore provide an easily understandable terminology, information regarding the severity of the injury, and guidance as to the choice of treatment. The classification should be comprehensive so that every injury can be precisely defined, itemized, and retrieved, as necessary. In addition, the structure of the classification should also allow it to be used in a simplified form without impairment of information most essential for clinical practice. Several criteria have been employed to classify spinal injuries, e.g., stability, mechanism of injury, and involvement of anatomical structures. Though each of the existing classifications has certain merits, none would seem to meet all the requirements. The classification proposed is the result of more than 10 years of intense consideration of the subject matter [29] and a thorough review of 1445 consecutive thoracolumbar injuries at five institutions 1. During this time we tested several existing classification systems and worked on our own approaches to a new system until finally agreeing on the version presented here. The new classification is primarily based on the pathomorphology of the injury. Emphasis was placed on the extent of involvement of the anterior and posterior elements, with particular reference to soft-tissue injury, as well as ancillary bony lesions. Analysis of the injury pattern provides information on the pathomechanics of the injury, at least regarding the main mechanisms, For example, loss of vertebral height implies a compressive force, transverse disruption suggests distraction or shear, and rotational displacement in the vertical axis indicates torsion. Each of these mechanisms produces injuries with its own characteristic fundamental pattern. Although compression may be purely axial or combined with flexion, distraction and torsion usually occur in combination with compression, flexion, extension, and/ or shear. Deviations and combinations of forces and moments as well as their varying magnitude and rate modify the fundamental patterns. The natural variations in the anatomical and mechanical properties of the different sections of the thoracolunibar spine itself are responsible for the fact that some injury patterns are typical of certain sections. Age-related differences in the strength of the affected tissue determine that some forms of injury are typical of juvenile or osteoporotic spines. Because the fundmnental pattern of injury still remains recognizable in almost every case, the main mechanisms of injury can be used to establish principal categories, each of which is characterized by common morphological findings. In view of the great variability of the forces and moments, it would, however, hardly be feasible to use the mechanism of injury as an order principle throughout the classification. To provide an easily recognizable grid for classifying the injuries, the 3-3-3 scheme of the AO fracture classification was applied as far as possible. The three principle categories, the types, are determined by the three most imDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Kantonsspital, St. Gallen; Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Inselspital, Bern; Sunnybrook Health Service Centre, Toronto; Rehabilitationskrankenhaus~ Karlsbad-Langensteinbach; H6pital de la Conception, Marseille portant mechanisms acting on the spine [46]: compression, distraction, and torsion. Predominantly morphological criteria are used for all further grouping. Every injury can be defined alphanumerically or by a descriptive name, e.g., wedge impaction fracture, anterior dislocation, or rotational burst fracture. The specifications describe the injuries most precisely. In clinical practice, application of the classification can be restricted to subgroups or even groups without the toss of information which is most important for defining the principal nature of the injury and the choice of treatment. As already mentioned, distraction as well as torsion. usually occur in combination with other mechanisms. Since posterior distraction is often combined with anterior compression, type A fractures reoccur in type B as the anterior component of flexion-distraction lesions. Torsion is frequently associated with compression or distraction. Consequently, type A and B lesions appear in type C modified by the axial torque. Thus, several type B and C injuries arc based on preceding types. This concept permits the inclusion of various combinations of injuries, facilitates their proper identification, and avoids the need to memorize every particular form of injury. It is quite natural that injuries occur which constitute transient forms between types as well as between subdivisions of the classification. For example, a type A injury can become type B when the degree of flexion exceeds the point beyond which the posterior ligament complex definitely fails. Transient forms with partial rupture of the posterior ligaments occur in cases in which the degree of flexion has just become critical. The same applies for transient forms between type A or B and type C injuries. Here, the degree of axial torque determines whether a partially or fully developed rotational injury will result. Transient forms may either be allocated to the lesser or more severe category, depending on which characteristics predominate. While dealing with the subject, all injuries described in the classification were seen by us. Regarding statistical data, there is good reason to assume that in the review of the 1445 cases, some type B injuries of the thoracic spine were missed and classified as type A injuries when only standard radiographs were available. Correct diagnosis of posterior distraction injuries is often difficult since some of them can look like plain type A lesions, especially in the thoracic spine. Therefore, it is of the utmost importance to search for clinical and radiological signs of posterior disruption to unmask the true nature of the injury. Radiographically, a posterior lesion is often only identifiable by lateral tomography or sagittal reconstruction of thin CT slices. The severity of trauma has been considered in the organization of the classification whenever possible. Severity is defined by several factors such as impairment of stability, risk of neurologic injury, and prognostic aspects. In this classification, the loss of stability constitutes the primary determining factor for ranking the injuries because it is the most important one for choosing the form of treatment. This study confirms that the risk of neural injury is largely" linked to the degree of instability (Table 5). The 199 separation of discoligamentous injuries from osseous lesions was undertaken in consideration of prognostic aspects important for the treatment. Because discoligamentous injuries have a poor healing potential [28], surgical stabilization and tusion should be considered to avoid chronic instability. The term 'instability' on its own is of little use if it is not related to parameters defining the load beyond which a physical structure fails. For understanding traumatic spinal instability; the definition of stability as formulated by Whitesides [46] may be helpful: "A stable spine should be one that can withstand axial forces anteriorly through the vertebral bodies, tension forces posteriorly, and rotational stresses .... thus being able to function to hold the body erect without progressive kyphosis and to protect the spinal canal contents from further injury". In this sense, any reduction of the compressive, tensile, or torsional strength impairing the spine from functioning in the upright position as outlined by Whitesides would, by inverse definition, be instability. Whitesides' definition also implies that forces and moments most important for the spine can be reduced to compressive forces, tensile forces, and axial torque. With the proviso that tensile forces can also act anteriorly, Whitesides' primary forces correspond to those responsible for the fundamental injury patterns of the types in our classification: Type A injuries are primarily caused by compression, type B injuries by tension, and type C injuries by axial torque. Though any reduction of resistance against primary forces may be termed 'instability,' a more precise identification of the type and degree of instability is necessary for the treatment modatities. There are injuries which are clearly stable and those which are clearly unstable when subject to forces of any direction and magnitude. Between these two extremes, there are many injuries of varying instability with flowing transitions regarding the quality and magnitude of the instability. There are those with 'partial instability' and simultaneously 'residual stability.' For example, most type A injuries are unstable in compression but stable in distraction, shear, and torque. An anterior dislocation is unstable in flexion and anterior shear; in extension and compression, however, it is stable when reduced. Both residual stability and the type of instability must be considered when selecting the most rational form of treatment, i.e., restoring stability with minimum expenditure and invasiveness. Thus, understanding the individual aspects of instability helps determine the appropriate treatment. Overlap of some categories regarding instability was accepted for the sake of morphological uniformity. Furthermore, because the precise degree of instability cannot be defined for every injury, it would hardly be feasible to classify spinal injuries on a strictly progressive scale of instability. Generally, however, instability increases from type to type and within each subdivision of the classification. The progression of instability and its consequences for the choice of treatment can be described as follows. • Type A: The stability in compression may be intact, impaired, or lost, depending on the extent of destruction of the vertebral body. The stability in flexion may be intact, or it may be reduced due to the impaired compressive resistance of the vertebral body. However, stability in flexion is never completely lost since, by definition, the posterior ligament complex must be intact in type A injuries. Really stable injuries only occur in type A. The degree of instability progresses gradually from the stable A1 fractures to the very unstable A3.3 burst fractures. Translation in the horizontal plane does not occur in this type. The intactness of the posterior ligament complex and the anterior longitudinal ligament [48] accounts for the unimpaired tensile strength of the spine, which is in turn important for treatment modalities. Application of longitudinal traction, e.g., by Harrington distraction rods or an internal fixator, does not result in overdistraction. The spine is stable in extension as the strong anterior longitudinN ligament is preserved [48], and the posterior vertebral elements maintain their stabilizing function despite a possible split of the lamina. Because the posterior vertebral elements can act as a fulcrum, extension can be used for reduction of type A fractures in conservative treatment [3, 44]. Only complete burst fractures with markedly splayed laminae may constitute exceptions in this regard. • Type B: The leading criterion is the partial or complete loss of the tensile strength of the spine, often in addition to the loss of stability in axial compression. Sagittal translation can occur either anteriorly or posteriorly. • B1 and B2 injuries: Due to the transverse posterior disruption, stability in flexion is always completely lost, sometimes together with the loss of stability in anterior shear. These instabilities are combined with a reduced stability in axial compression if the posterior injury is associated with a type A fracture. Stability in extension is generally preserved because the anterior longitudinal ligament is most often stripped off the vertebral body. Anterior subluxation or dislocation can occur, and if not present, the potential presence of anterior sagittal translation should be taken into consideration. Application of posterior distraction can result in kyphosis or even overdistraction. Stabilization of these injuries should therefore involve posterior compression and restoration of the compressive resistance of the anterior column, where necessary. This can be accomplished by either conservative or surgical treatment modalities. Conservative treatment with immobilization in hyperextension may be adequate for predominantly osseous injuries in which intact articular processes prevent anterior translational displacement. This treatment may also be applied to transverse bicolumn fractures since the friction in the rough and large bony surfaces would prevent secondary anterior displacement. However, mainly discotigamentous injuries necessitate surgical treatment, including fusion, because of their poor healing potential [28]. • B3 injuries: These injuries are unstable in extension and stable in axial compression, at least when reduced. Injuries with a preserved posterior ligament complex are also stable in flexion. On the other hand, injuries with additionally disrupted posterior structures, as with posterior dislocation and some of the shear fracture dislocations de- 200 scribed by Denis and Burkus [14], completely lack tensile and shear resistance. True anterior translational displacement may be found in shear fracture dislocations [14], whereas in hyperextension spondylolyses, only the vertebral body is displaced anteriorly. Posterior translational displacement is typical of posterior dislocations. Since the disc is damaged in all B3 injuries, surgical treatment is indicated, including fusion. Anterior fusion supplemented by tension band fixation or followed by postoperative immobilization in slight flexion can be applied in injuries with preserved stability in flexion. Posterior dislocations and some shear fracture dislocations require combined anterior and posterior stabilization or the application of a fixator system. spine (C3-7). Our current experience with the classification of these injuries has so far confirmed that they can be logically integrated into the new system without difficulty. Any classification serves several purposes. Besides providing a common terminology, facilitating the choice of treatment is considered to be the main goal for clinical practice. We believe that this classification provides a sound basis for determining a rational approach to the management of the injuries, and that it will prove its value for documentation of the injuries and for future research. • Type C: These injuries are unstable in axial torque. In most cases, instability in axial torque is superimposed on the instabilities already present in types A or B. Instability in torque is caused by the patterns of the vertebral fracture itself as well as by avulsion of soft-tissue attachments (e.g., disc, ligaments, muscles) and fractures of bony structures (e.g., transverse processes, fibs) which control rotation. Except for some incomplete lesions, the majority of type C injuries seen in clinical practice represent the most unstable injuries with the highest incidence of neurological deficit (Table 5). The potential for horizontal translation in every direction is present in the vast majority of cases, regardless of the radiographic appearance. Since these lesions can spontaneously reduce, translation may not be seen on any given set of radiographs. Because of the high degree of instability and the poor healing potential of mainly discoligamentous rotational injuries, treatment should be surgical. Whereas in type A and B injuries the internal fixation must resist shortening, flexion, or extension, and sometimes sagittal shear, the system used for fixation of rotational injuries must additionally withstand axial torque and any shearing in the horizontal plane. 1. Arciero R, Leung K, Pierce J (I989) Spontaneous unstable burst fracture of the thoracolumbar spine in osteoporosis. Spine 14:114-117 2. Boger DC, Chandler RW, Pearce JG, Balciunas A (1983) Unilateral facet dislocation at the lumbosacral junction. J Bone Joint Surg [Am] 65 : 1174-1178 3. B6hler L (1951) Die Technik der Knochenbruchbehandlung, 12-13 edn. vol 1. Maudrich, Vienna, pp 318-480 4. B0hler J (1983) Bilanz der konservativen und operativen Knochenbruchbehandlung - Becken und Wirbels~iule. Chirurg 54: 241-247 5. Chance CQ (1948) Note on a type of flexion fracture of the spine. Br J Radiol 21:452-453 6. Conolly PJ, Esses StI, Heggeness MH, Cook StS (1992) Unilateral facet dislocation of the lumbosacral junction. Spine 17 : 1244-1248 7. De Oliviera J (1978) A new type of fracture-dislocation of the thoracolumbar spine. J Bone Joint Surg [Am] 60:481-488 8. Delplace J, Tricoit M, Sillion D, Vialla JF (1983) Luxation post6rieure de L5 sur le sacrum. Apropos d'un cas. Rev Chir Orthop 69 : 141-145 9. Denis F (1982) Updated classification of thoracolumbar fractures. Orthop Trans 6: 8-9 10. Denis F (1983) The three column spine and its significance in the classification of acute thoracolumbar spinal injuries. Spine 8:817-831 11. Denis F (1984) Spinal instability as defined by the three-column spine concept in acute spinal trauma. Clin Orthop 189: 65-76 12. Denis F, Burkus JK (1991) Lateral distraction injuries to the thoracic and lumbar spine. A report of three cases. J Bone Joint Surg JAm] 73:1049-1053 13. Denis F, Burkus JK (1991) Diagnosis and treatment of cauda equina entrapment in the vertical lamina fracture of lumbar burst fractures. Spine (Suppl) 16:433439 14. Denis F, Burkus JK (1992) Shear fracture dislocation of the thoracic and lumbar spine associated with forceful hyperextension (lumberjack paraplegia). Spine 17:156-161 15. Ferguson RL, Allen BL Jr (1984) A mechanistic classification of thoracolumbar spine fractures. Clin Orthop 189:77-88 16. Fuentes JM, Bloncourt J, Bourbotte G, Castan P, Vlahovitch B (1984) La fracture du chance. Neurochirurgie 30:113-118 17. Gertzbein SD, Court-Brown CM (1988) Flexion/distraction injuries of the lumbar spine. Mechanisms of injury and classification. Clin Orthop 227:52-60 18. Gertzbein SD, Court-Brown CM (1989) The rationale for management of flexion/distraction injuries of the thoracolumbar spine, based on a new classification. J Spinal Disord 2: 176183 19. Gertzbein SD, Offierski C (1979) Complete fracture-dislocation of the thoracic spine without spinal cord injury. A case report. J Bone Joint Surg [Am] 61:449-451 20. Gumley G, Taytor TKF, Ryan MD (1982) Distraction fractures of the lumbar spine. J Bone Joint Surg [Brl 64 : 520-525 Conclusions Experience has shown that to a great extent this classification meets the previously outlined requirements. The injuries are logically grouped into different categories according to main mechanisms of injury and pathomorphological uniformity, and with prognostic aspects in mind. Its organization presents a progressive scale of morphological damage by which the degree of instability is determined. Thus, the severity of the injury' in terms of instability is expressed by its ranking within this classification system. The degree of instability and prognostic aspects indicate the treatment to be applied. The classification is comprehensive as almost any injury can be itemized according to easily recognizable and consistent radiographic and clinical findings. It can, however, also be used in an abbreviated form without impairment of the information most important for clinical practice. Recognition of the fundamental nature of an injury is facilitated by using a simple algorithm (Fig. 27). Furthermore, the system presented also permits the classification of injuries occurring in the lower cervical References 201 21. Holdsworth FW (1963) Fractures, dislocations, and fracturedislocations of the spine, J Bone Joint Surg [Br] 45 : 6-20 22. Holdsworth FW (1970) Review article: fractures, dislocations, and fracture-dislocations of the spine. J Bone Joint Surg [Am] 52:1534-1551 23. Howland WJ, Curry JL, Buffington CD (1965) Fulcrum injuries of the lumbar spine. JAMA 193:240-241 24. Jeanneret B, Ward J-C, Magerl F (1993) Pincer fractures: a therapeutic quandary. Rev Chir Orthop 79 (Spdcial):Abstract 38 25. Jeanneret B, Ho PK, Magerl F (1993) "Burst-shear" flexion/ distraction injuries of the lumbar spine. J Spinal Disord 6:473481 26. Lindahl S, Witldn J, Norwall A, Irstam L (1983) The crushcleavage fracture. A "new" thoracolumbar unstable fracture. Spine 8 : 559-569 27. Lob A (1954) Die Wirbels~iulen-Verletzungenund ihre Ausheilung, Thieme, Stuttgart 28. Louis R (1977) Les thdories de l'instabititd. Rev Chir Orthop 63 :423--425 29. Magerl F, Harms J, Gertzbein SD, Aebi M, Nazarian S (1990) A new classification of spinal fractures. Presented at the Societal Internationale de Chirurgie Orthopddique et de Traumatologie (SICOT) Meeting, Montreal, September 9, 1990 30. Maruo S, Tatekawa F, Nakano K (1987) Paraplegie infolge yon Wirbelkompressionsfrakturen bei seniler Osteoporose. Z Orthop 125 : 320-323 31. McAfee PC, Yuan HA, Fredrickson BE, Lubicky JP (1983) The value of computed tomography in thoracolumbar fractures. An analysis of one hundred consecutive cases and a new classification. J Bone Joint Surg [Am] 65:461479 32. Mtiller ME, Nazarian S, Koch P (1987) Classification AO des fractures. 1 Les os longs. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York 33. Nicolt EA (1949) Fractures of the dorso-lumbar spine. J Bone Joint Surg [Br] 31:376-394 34. Powell J, Waddell J, Tucker W, Transfeldt E (1989) Multiplelevel noncontiguous spinal fractures. J Trauma 29:1146-1150 35. Rennie W, Mitchell N (1973) Flexion distraction injuries of the thoracolumbar spine. J Bone Joint Surg [Am] 55 : 386-390 36. Roy-Camille R, Saillant G (1984) Les traumatismes du rachis sans complication nem'ologique. Int Orthop 8:155-162 37. Roy-Camille R, Saillant G, Berteaux D, Marie-Anne S (1979) Early management of spinal injuries. In: McKibbin B (ed) Recent advances in orthopaedics 3. Churchill Livingstone, Edinburgh, pp 57-87 38. Roy-Camille R, Gagnon P, Catonne Y, Benazet JB (t980) La luxation antdro-lat~rale du rachis lombo-sacr~. Rev Chir Orthop 66 : 105-109 39. Salomon C, Chopin D, Benoist M (1988) Spinal cord compression: an exceptional complication of spinal osteoporosis. Spine 13 : 222-224 40. Sasson A, Mozes G (1987) Complete fracture-dislocation of the thoracic spine without neurologic deficit. A case report, Spine 12: 67-70 41. Shikata J, Yamamuro T, Iida H, Shimizu K, Yoshikawa J (1990) Surgical treatment for paraplegia resulting from vertebral fractures in senile osteoporosis. Spine 15:485-489 42. Simpson AHRW, Witliamson DM, Golding SJ, Houghton GR (1990) Thoracic spine transtocation without cord injury. J Bone Joint Surg [Br] 72 : 80-83 43. Smith WS, Kaufer H (1969) Patterns and mechanics of lumbar injuries associated with lap seat belts. J Bone Joint Surg [Am] 51 : 239-254 44. Trojan E (1972) Langfristige Ergebnisse von 200 Wirbelbrachen der Brust- und Lendenwirbels~ule ohne L~hmung. Z Unfallmed Berufskr 65 : 122-134 45. White AA III, Panjabi MM (1978) Clinical biomechanics of the spine. Lippincott, Philadelphia 46. Whitesides TE Jr (1977) Traumatic kyphosis of the thoracolumbar spine. Clin Orthop 128:78-92 47. Witlems MHA, Braakman R, Van Linge B (1984) Bilateral locked facets in the thoracic spine. Acta Orthop Scand 55: 300-303 48. Willdn J, Lindahl S, Irstam L, Aldman B, Norwall A (1984) The thoracolumbar crush fracture. An experimental study on instant axial dynamic loading: the resulting fracture type and its instability. Spine 9 : 624-630