Background: Thoracolumbar burst fractures with neurological deficits require decompression and stabilization. The spinous process-splitting approach (SPSA) achieves neural decompression while preserving the posterior osteoligamentous complex and minimizing paraspinal muscle injury.
Objective: Although various posterior surgical techniques are available for thoracolumbar burst fractures with neurological deficits, achieving adequate neural decompression while maximally preserving the posterior osteoligamentous complex remains technically challenging; a standardized approach that balances sufficient decompression with posterior structural preservation is still lacking. Therefore, we aimed to describe a modified SPSA combining the Wiltse interval with spinous process splitting for decompression, and to preliminarily evaluate its feasibility, safety, and early clinical and radiographic outcomes.
Methods: We retrospectively reviewed seven consecutive male patients who underwent posterior fixation, decompression, and fusion via modified SPSA between January 2020 and December 2024. Outcomes included American Spinal Injury Association (ASIA) grade, Visual Analog Scale (VAS) for pain, Gardner angle, anterior vertebral height ratio, and spinal canal encroachment ratio, assessed preoperatively, at 1 week postoperatively, and at 14 ± 2 months. Repeated-measures ANOVA was performed (α = 0.05).
Results: All procedures were completed successfully with mean operative time of 172.1 ± 95.7 min. All patients improved by at least one ASIA grade postoperatively, with no neurological deterioration. VAS scores decreased from 6.86 ± 0.90 preoperatively to 3.29 ± 0.49 at 1 week, and to 1.14 ± 0.38 at final follow-up (F = 350.00, p < 0.01). Gardner angle improved from 19.63° ± 8.92° to 4.39° ± 4.08° and remained stable at 4.69° ± 4.27° (F = 54.65, p < 0.01). Anterior vertebral height ratio increased from 51.82% ± 1.20% to 91.96% ± 7.93% and was maintained at 91.30% ± 8.13% (F = 89.41, p < 0.01). Spinal canal encroachment decreased from 62.32% ± 14.90% to 16.42% ± 10.78% postoperatively and remained stable at 16.89% ± 11.54% (F = 48.49, p < 0.01). All fractures achieved radiographic union without loss of correction.
Conclusions: Modified SPSA combining the Wiltse interval and midline spinous process splitting appears feasible for achieving decompression, reduction, and fixation while preserving posterior structures in selected patients with thoracolumbar burst fractures and neurological deficits. Larger prospective comparative studies are required to confirm long-term efficacy and define optimal patient selection criteria.
| [1] |
M. Zileli, S. Sharif, and M. Fornari, “Incidence and Epidemiology of Thoracolumbar Spine Fractures: WFNS Spine Committee Recommendations,” Neurospine 18, no. 4 (2021): 704–712, https://doi.org/10.14245/ns.2142418.209.
|
| [2] |
N. Q. Nguyen and T. H. Phan, “The Radiological Complications of Short-Segment Pedicle Screw Fixation Combined With Transforaminal Interbody Fusion in the Treatment of Unstable Thoracolumbar Burst Fracture: A Retrospective Case Series Study in Vietnam,” Orthopedic Research and Reviews 14 (2022): 91–99, https://doi.org/10.2147/ORR.S356296.
|
| [3] |
K. B. Wood, G. R. Buttermann, R. Phukan, et al., “Operative Compared With Nonoperative Treatment of a Thoracolumbar Burst Fracture Without Neurological Deficit: A Prospective Randomized Study With Follow-Up at Sixteen to Twenty-Two Years,” Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. American Volume 97, no. 1 (2015): 3–9, https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.N.00226.
|
| [4] |
S. R. Gnanenthiran, S. Adie, and I. A. Harris, “Nonoperative Versus Operative Treatment for Thoracolumbar Burst Fractures Without Neurologic Deficit: A Meta-Analysis,” Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research 470, no. 2 (2012): 567–577, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-011-2157-7.
|
| [5] |
T. Wang, Z. Li, Y. Zhang, et al., “The Efficacy and Safety of Anterior Versus Posterior Approach for the Treatment of Thoracolumbar Burst Fractures: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis,” Annals of Translational Medicine 10, no. 6 (2022): 309, https://doi.org/10.21037/atm-22-903.
|
| [6] |
K. He, L. Zhang, and J. Zhao, “The Implications of Paraspinal Muscle Atrophy in Low Back Pain, Thoracolumbar Pathology, and Clinical Outcomes After Spine Surgery: A Review of the Literature,” Global Spine Journal 10, no. 5 (2020): 657–666, https://doi.org/10.1177/2192568219879087.
|
| [7] |
H. Hughes, A. Carthy, G. Sheridan, J. Donnell, F. Doyle, and J. Butler, “Thoracolumbar Burst Fractures: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Comparing Posterior-Only Instrumentation Versus Combined Anterior-Posterior Instrumentation,” Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 46, no. 15 (2021): E840–E849, https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000003934.
|
| [8] |
A. Guiroy, S. Kattail, and A. Ahuja, “How to Perform the Wiltse Posterolateral Spinal Approach: Technical Note,” Surgical Neurology International 9 (2018): 38, https://doi.org/10.4103/sni.sni_344_17.
|
| [9] |
Y. M. Jin, H. Zhang, and J. Li, “Clinical Research and Technique Note of TLIF by Wiltse Approach for the Treatment of Degenerative Lumbar,” Orthopedic Surgery 13, no. 5 (2021): 1628–1638, https://doi.org/10.1111/os.13055.
|
| [10] |
J. Hsiang, K. Yu, and Y. He, “Minimally Invasive One-Level Lumbar Decompression and Fusion Surgery With Posterior Instrumentation Using a Combination of Pedicle Screw Fixation and Transpedicular Facet Screw Construct,” Surgical Neurology International 4 (2013): 125, https://doi.org/10.4103/2152-7806.119007.
|
| [11] |
G. Liu, S. Cai, C. Wu, et al., “Quantitative Assessment of Lumbar Posterior Anatomy on Axial T2-Weighted MR Imaging: A Comprehensive Analysis of Muscle–Bone Interval and Spinous Process Muscle-Ligaments Complex,” European Spine Journal 34 (2025): 5175–5189, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-025-09009-2.
|
| [12] |
Y. Ma and Y. Hu, “Research Progress on the Posterior Midline Lumbar Spinous Process-Splitting Approach,” Orthopedic Surgery 17, no. 4 (2025): 990–998, https://doi.org/10.1111/os.14355.
|
| [13] |
S. Lee and U. Srikantha, “Spinous Process Splitting Laminectomy: Clinical Outcome and Radiological Analysis of Extent of Decompression,” International Journal of Spine Surgery 9 (2015): 20, https://doi.org/10.14444/2020.
|
| [14] |
K. Watanabe, M. Matsumoto, T. Ikegami, et al., “Reduced Postoperative Wound Pain After Lumbar Spinous Process-Splitting Laminectomy for Lumbar Canal Stenosis: A Randomized Controlled Study,” Journal of Neurosurgery. Spine 14, no. 1 (2011): 51–58, https://doi.org/10.3171/2010.9.SPINE09933.
|
| [15] |
A. R. Vaccaro, C. Oner, and C. K. Kepler, “AOSpine Thoracolumbar Spine Injury Classification System: Fracture Description, Neurological Status, and Key Modifiers,” Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 38, no. 23 (2013): 2028–2037, https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e3182a8a381.
|
| [16] |
W. T. Yuh and J. Y. Lee, “Deep Learning-Assisted Quantitative Measurement of Thoracolumbar Fracture Features on Lateral Radiographs,” Neurospine 21, no. 1 (2024): 30–43, https://doi.org/10.14245/ns.2347366.683.
|
| [17] |
J. Huang, J. Guo, and Y. Zhang, “Effect of Manual Reduction and Indirect Decompression on Thoracolumbar Burst Fracture: A Comparison Study,” Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research 15, no. 1 (2020): 532, https://doi.org/10.1186/s13018-020-02075-w.
|
| [18] |
J. Liu, Z. Pang, and W. Xu, “Comparison of Pedicle Fixation by the Wiltse Approach and the Conventional Posterior Open Approach for Thoracolumbar Fractures, Using MRI, Histological and Electrophysiological Analyses of the Multifidus Muscle,” European Spine Journal 26, no. 5 (2017): 1506–1514, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-017-5010-1.
|
| [19] |
S. Sharif, Y. Shaikh, O. Yaman, and M. Zileli, “Surgical Techniques for Thoracolumbar Spine Fractures: WFNS Spine Committee Recommendations,” Neurospine 18, no. 4 (2021): 667–680, https://doi.org/10.14245/ns.2142206.253.
|
| [20] |
C. Knop, L. Bastian, U. Lange, M. Oeser, M. Zdichavsky, and M. Blauth, “Complications in Surgical Treatment of Thoracolumbar Injuries,” European Spine Journal 11, no. 3 (2002): 214–226, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-001-0382-6.
|
| [21] |
Q. Zhu, F. Shi, W. Cai, J. Bai, J. Fan, and H. Yang, “Comparison of Anterior Versus Posterior Approach in the Treatment of Thoracolumbar Fractures: A Systematic Review,” International Surgery 100, no. 6 (2015): 1124–1133, https://doi.org/10.9738/INTSURG-D-14-00135.1.
|
| [22] |
S. G. Memtsoudis, Y. Ma, and Y. L. Chiu, “Perioperative Morbidity and Mortality After Anterior, Posterior, and Anterior/Posterior Spine Fusion Surgery,” Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 36, no. 22 (2011): 1867–1877, https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181c7decc.
|
| [23] |
M. Pishnamaz, G. Regel, and U. Lewan, “Muscular Changes After Minimally Invasive Versus Open Spinal Stabilization of Thoracolumbar Fractures: A Literature Review,” Journal of Musculoskeletal & Neuronal Interactions 18, no. 1 (2018): 62–70.
|
| [24] |
Y. Li and A. Kam, “Posterior Approaches to the Thoracolumbar Spine: Open Versus MISS,” in Handbook of Spine Technology, ed. B. Cheng (Springer International Publishing, 2020), 1029–1050, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-44424-6_89.
|
| [25] |
Y. Liao, Z. Li, and J. Wang, “Association Between Paraspinal Muscle Fat Infiltration and Regional Kyphosis Angle in Thoracolumbar Fracture Patients: A Retrospective Study,” Scientific Reports 14, no. 1 (2024): 2364, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-53017-z.
|
| [26] |
S. J. Hyun, C. S. Lee, T. A. Jahng, and H. J. Kim, “Postoperative Changes in Paraspinal Muscle Volume: Comparison Between Paramedian Interfascial and Midline Approaches for Lumbar Fusion,” Journal of Korean Medical Science 22, no. 4 (2007): 646–651, https://doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2007.22.4.646.
|
| [27] |
K. Watanabe, S. Oya, and T. Oichi, “Lumbar Spinous Process-Splitting Laminectomy for Lumbar Canal Stenosis. Technical Note,” Journal of Neurosurgery. Spine 3, no. 5 (2005): 405–408, https://doi.org/10.3171/spi.2005.3.5.0405.
|
| [28] |
L. He, X. Zhang, and Y. Li, “Posterior Ligamentum Complex Preservation Alleviate ASD-Related Biomechanical Deterioration in Lumbar Interbody Fusion Models: A Finite Element Analysis,” JOR Spine 8, no. 1 (2025): e70030, https://doi.org/10.1002/jsp2.70030.
|
| [29] |
D. Kurogochi, K. Koyama, and T. Saito, “Comparison of Spinous Process-Splitting Laminectomy Versus Posterolateral Fusion for Lumbar Degenerative Spondylolisthesis,” European Spine Journal 32, no. 2 (2023): 447–454, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-022-07978-6.
|
| [30] |
G. Liu, Y. Ma, and K. Chen, “Unilateral Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Through a Modified Hemilateral Spinous Process-Splitting Approach,” Frontiers in Neurology 14 (2023): 1274384, https://doi.org/10.3389/fneur.2023.1274384.
|
| [31] |
S. Voglis, L. Tosic, L. M. Höbner, et al., “Spinous-Process-Splitting Versus Conventional Decompression for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: Comparative Study With Respect to Short-Term Postoperative Pain and Analgesics Use,” World Neurosurgery 160 (2022): e80–e87, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wneu.2021.12.094.
|
| [32] |
T. C. Ovalioglu, A. Ozdemir Ovalioglu, G. Canaz, M. Gunes, M. Babur, and E. Emel, “Efficacy of Spinous Process Splitting Decompression Compared With Conventional Laminectomy for Degenerative Lumbar Stenosis,” World Neurosurgery 164 (2022): e1233–e1242, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wneu.2022.06.015.
|
| [33] |
K. Masuda, R. Kaneyama, and K. Ishii, “Comparison of Modified Marmot Surgery and Lumbar Spinous Process Splitting Laminectomy in Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: Two-Year Outcomes,” Spine Surgery and Related Research 5, no. 3 (2021): 165–170, https://doi.org/10.22603/ssrr.2020-0149.
|
| [34] |
T. Okubo, T. Sugawara, and T. Miura, “Spinous Process-Splitting Laminectomy Approach for Tumor Excision at Conus Medullaris or Cauda Equina Level Results in Satisfactory Clinical Outcomes Without Affecting Global Spinal Sagittal Alignment,” Global Spine Journal 13, no. 7 (2023): 1745–1753, https://doi.org/10.1177/21925682211047460.
|
| [35] |
S. O. Tomasi, J. F. Vitorino, and C. B. de Oliveira, “Lumbar Spinous Process-Splitting Technique for Ligamentum Flavum Cyst Removal,” Journal of Neurological Surgery. Part A, Central European Neurosurgery 85, no. 2 (2024): 195–201, https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0043-1761928.
|
| [36] |
S. Tanaka, Y. Ogawa, and T. Saito, “Comparison of Short-Term Clinical Results and Radiologic Changes Between Two Different Minimally Invasive Decompressive Surgical Methods for Lumbar Canal Stenosis: Lumbar Spinous Process Splitting Laminectomy and Trans-Interspinous Lumbar Decompression,” Spine 46, no. 21 (2021): E1136–E1145, https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000004002.
|
| [37] |
A. Tarabay, R. Maduri, M. Rizzi, J. Barges-Coll, A. C. Truttmann, and M. Messerer, “Midline Spinous Process Splitting Laminoplasty in a Newborn With Thoracolumbar Epidural Hematoma: A Bone-Sparing Procedure Based on Anatomy and Embryology,” Child's Nervous System 36, no. 12 (2020): 3103–3108, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00381-020-04611-9.
|
| [38] |
G. Liu, Y. Ma, and K. Chen, “Clinical Outcomes of Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Using a Modified Posterior Spinous Process-Splitting Approach for Lumbar Degenerative or Isthmic Spondylolisthesis: A Prospective Cohort Study,” Journal of Neurosurgery. Spine 39, no. 3 (2023): 387–393, https://doi.org/10.3171/2023.4.SPINE2322.
|
| [39] |
R. Oyama, T. Arizono, and A. Inokuchi, “Comparison of Microendoscopic Laminotomy (MEL) Versus Spinous Process-Splitting Laminotomy (SPSL) for Multi-Segmental Lumbar Spinal Stenosis,” Cureus 14, no. 2 (2022): e22067, https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.22067.
|
| [40] |
J. Chen, J. Zhu, Y. Jiang, K. Jiang, J. Zhu, and Z. Lou, “Comparison of Lumbar Spinous Process-Splitting Laminectomy Versus Conventional Laminectomy for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis,” World Neurosurgery 197 (2025): 123954, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wneu.2025.123954.
|
| [41] |
K. Kato, S. Yabuki, K. Otani, et al., “A Muscle-Preserving, Spinous Process-Splitting Approach for Ossification of the Ligamentum Flavum in the Thoracic Spine in Professional Athletes: A Report of Three Cases,” Fukushima Journal of Medical Science 69, no. 2 (2023): 143–150, https://doi.org/10.5387/fms.2022-32.
|
| [42] |
G. Liu, Y. Ma, and K. Chen, “Comparison of Clinical and Radiographic Outcomes in Unilateral Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Retrospective Analysis of Three Surgical Approaches,” European Spine Journal 34, no. 1 (2025): 204–214, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-025-09009-2.
|
| [43] |
A. F. A. B. Allam, M. F. A. B. Allam, and S. Ragaee, “How Can Spinous Process Splitting Approach in Lumbar Spine Surgery Preserve the Para-Spinal Muscles? Quantitative Pre- and Post-Operative Dixon MRI Assessment,” Egyptian Journal of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine 56, no. 1 (2025): 57, https://doi.org/10.1186/s43055-025-01471-8.
|
| [44] |
M. Uehara, J. Takahashi, H. Hashidate, et al., “Comparison of Spinous Process-Splitting Laminectomy Versus Conventional Laminectomy for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis,” Asian Spine J 8, no. 6 (2014): 768–776, https://doi.org/10.4184/asj.2014.8.6.768.
|
| [45] |
H. J. Son, B. S. Chang, S. Y. Chang, G. Gimm, and H. Kim, “Midterm Outcomes of Muscle-Preserving Posterior Lumbar Decompression via Sagittal Splitting of the Spinous Process: Minimum 5-Year Follow-Up,” Clinics in Orthopedic Surgery 15, no. 5 (2023): 800–808, https://doi.org/10.4055/cios22362.
|
RIGHTS & PERMISSIONS
2026 The Author(s). Orthopaedic Surgery published by Tianjin Hospital and John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd.
PDF
(1421KB)
