Long-term Differences In Physical Functioning And Quality Of Life Between Conservatively And Surgically Treated Traumatic Thoracolumbar A3/A4 Fractures

Read the full article See related articles

Discuss this preprint

Start a discussion What are Sciety discussions?

Listed in

This article is not in any list yet, why not save it to one of your lists.
Log in to save this article

Abstract

Purpose To compare recovery rates of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in terms of physical functioning and health-related quality of life (QoL) between surgically treated and conservatively treated patients with an A3/A4 thoracolumbar vertebral fracture, and compared to the general population. Methods A cross-sectional study including patients with thoracolumbar A3/A4 vertebral fractures in a level 1 trauma center between 2010 and 2020. SMFA-NL was used to evaluate physical functioning, and EQ-5D was used to assess QoL. Outcomes were compared with normative data from the Dutch population. Patient-reported outcomes and complication rates were reported for each treatment type. Recovery was defined as reaching the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of the normative data in all outcome measures. Results PROMs were available for 98 (37%) of the eligible patients with a median follow-up of 4.5 (IQR = 5.6) years. No significant differences in physical functioning or QoL were found between conservatively and surgically treated patients. The following non-recovery rates were found in the conservatively treated patients: physical functioning = 56–74%, QoL = 48% and in the surgically treated patients: physical functioning = 77–80%, QoL = 45%. Surgically treated patients showed significantly higher complication rates than conservatively treated patients. Conclusion No significant differences were found between conservatively and surgically treated patients with a thoracolumbar A3/A4 fracture in outcome regarding physical functioning or QoL. However, both surgically and conservatively treated patients showed significantly low recovery rates, up to 80% of no recovery, in comparison with their peers from the general population.

Article activity feed