Level IV, therapeutic study. See Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Biomechanical results indicate that design variations of expandable cages for vertebral body replacement are of little importance. Additionally, no significant difference could be determined between the biomechanical properties of expandable and nonexpandable cages. After corporectomy, isolated implantation of expandable cages plus anterior plating was not able to restore normal stability of the motion segment. Therefore, isolated anterior stabilization using cages plus Locking Compression Plate should not be used for vertebral body replacement in the thoracolumbar spine.

Study Design:Abstract consensus paper with systematic literature review.Objective:The aim of this study was to establish recommendations for treatment of thoracolumbar spine fractures based on systematic review of current literature and consensus of several spine surgery experts.Methods:The project was initiated in September 2008 and published in Germany in 2011. It was redone in 2017 based on systematic literature review, including new AOSpine classification. Members of the expert group were recruited from all over Germany working in hospitals of all levels of care. In total, the consensus process included 9 meetings and 20 hours of video conferences.Results:As regards existing studies with highest level of evidence, a clear recommendation regarding treatment (operative vs conservative) or regarding type of surgery (posterior vs anterior vs combined anterior-posterior) cannot be given. Treatment has to be indicated individually based on clinical presentation, general condition of the patient, and radiological parameters. The following specific parameters have to be regarded and are proposed as morphological modifiers in addition to AOSpine classification: sagittal and coronal alignment of spine, degree of vertebral body destruction, stenosis of spinal canal, and intervertebral disc lesion. Meanwhile, the recommendations are used as standard algorithm in many German spine clinics and trauma centers.Conclusion:Clinical presentation and general condition of the patient are basic requirements for decision making. Additionally, treatment recommendations offer the physician a standardized, reproducible, and in Germany commonly accepted algorithm based on AOSpine classification and 4 morphological modifiers.

After 12 weeks, there was no significant difference between the bioabsorbable poly(l-lactide-co-d,l-lactide) cage and the tricortical bone graft. In comparison to the tricortical bone graft, the bioabsorbable polymer-calciumphosphate composite cage showed significantly better distractive properties, a significantly higher biomechanical stiffness, and an advanced interbody fusion; however, six of eight polymer-calciumphosphate composite cages cracked. Although the fate of the foreign body reactions and the cracks is currently unclear for both bioabsorbable cages, the early appearance of large osteolysis associated with use of the poly(l-lactide-co-d,l-lactide) cage allows skepticism regarding the value of this bioabsorbable implant.