ThoracolumbarNCT07408726
Monoaxial vs. Polyaxial Percutaneous Hybrid Stabilization
A study testing Monoaxial instrumentation - the M.U.S.T. Monoaxial Pedicle Screw Cannulated (Medacta International SA, Switzerland) and Polyaxial instrumentation - the M.U.S.T. LT Pedicle Screw System (Medacta International SA, Switzerland) in people with Thoracolumbar and Fractures in the Elderly, run by Medical University Innsbruck at 1 site in Austria.
Trial summary
Vertebral body fractures in older adults mostly affect the thoracolumbar junction and are challenging to treat due to osteoporosis and other comorbidities. Treatment options range from conservative approaches to minimally invasive procedures like vertebroplasty or balloon kyphoplasty, as well as surgical techniques… Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 60 years and older
- Conditions the study is for
- Thoracolumbar, Fractures in the Elderly
- What is being tested?
- Monoaxial instrumentation - the M.U.S.T. Monoaxial Pedicle Screw Cannulated (Medacta International SA, Switzerland) and Polyaxial instrumentation - the M.U.S.T. LT Pedicle Screw System (Medacta International SA, Switzerland)
- Type of treatment
- Medical device
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 44 participants
- Where
- 1 siteAustria
- Study dates
- 1 Sep 2026to 1 Nov 2028
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- Not yet: the study is under way
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 60 years and older
- All sexes
- No healthy volunteers
- Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- Patient-related criteria:
- Age ≥ 60 years (male and female patients)
- Ability to understand nature, risks, and benefits of study participation and to provide written informed consent.
- Psychosocially, mentally, and physically capable of complying with all study requirements, including scheduled follow-up visits, completion of forms, and participation in all procedures as defined by the protocol.
- Ambulatory prior to fracture, with or without the use of assistive devices
- Fracture-related criteria:
- Acute vertebral fractures located between T11 and L4 (inclusive)
- Fractures deemed suitable for bisegmental hybrid stabilization based on clinical and radiological assessment - primarily OF type 3 and type 4 fractures according to DGOU classification; type 2 and 5 fractures may also be included based on individual evaluation, with the final treatment decision left to the discretion of the treating surgeon.
Who cannot join
- Patient-related criteria:
- Body mass index (BMI) > 35
- Permanent or progressive neurologic deficits (including upper motor neuron disease and myelopathy)
- Rheumatoid arthritis or known disorders of bone metabolism (excluding osteopenia/osteoporosis, Vitamin D deficiency)
- History of radiation therapy to the spine
- History of alcohol or drug abuse within the last 2 years prior to randomization
Show all 17Show fewer
- Current therapy with high-dose systemic corticosteroids (e.g., >10 mg/day prednisone equivalent for more than 3 months)
- Ongoing or planned treatment with cytotoxic chemotherapy (excluding biologicals, immunotherapy, or targeted agents) at the time of enrollment
- Known allergy to any component of the spinal instrumentation
- Participation in other clinical investigations (drug or device) that may interfere with the outcomes of this study
- Fracture-related criteria:
- Vertebral fractures associated with neurological deficits
- Fracture age > 4 weeks at the time of enrollment
- Pathological fractures due to spinal infection or metastatic bone disease
- Planned major spinal surgery within 12 months of enrollment
- Severe spinal deformities or fusion at the index or adjacent segments
- Previous spinal surgery involving the index or adjacent vertebrae, with the exception of minor non-instrumented procedures, such as simple sequestrectomies or decompressions
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country. Contact the study team or a site near you to ask about taking part.
Austria1 site, 1 recruiting
- Recruiting
Univ.-Klinik für Orthopädie und Traumatologie
Innsbruck, Tyrol, 6020
About this study
Official title: Monoaxial vs. Polyaxial Percutaneous Hybrid Stabilization for Thoracolumbar Fractures in Elderly Patients: A Randomized, Single-Blind Pilot Study
Vertebral body fractures in older adults mostly affect the thoracolumbar junction and are challenging to treat due to osteoporosis and other comorbidities. Treatment options range from conservative approaches to minimally invasive procedures like vertebroplasty or balloon kyphoplasty, as well as surgical techniques such as posterior or combined stabilization. A common method for more severe fractures (from OF3 onwards) is percutaneous bisegmental hybrid stabilization using cement-augmented pedicle screws and balloon kyphoplasty. Polyaxial screws are easier to implant but offer less biomechanical stability. In contrast, monoaxial screws provide greater stiffness, allowing better correction of kyphosis and restoration of vertebral body height. The study compares radiological and clinical outcomes in patients aged 60 and older with thoracolumbar fractures (T11-L4) between monoaxial and polyaxial hybrid stabilization. The primary goal is to evaluate and compare the degree of kyphosis correction six months after surgery.
Read the detailed description
Vertebral fractures in elderly patients predominantly affect the thoracolumbar spine and continue to pose a significant clinical challenge. These fractures have distinct characteristics, are increasing in incidence, and represent a major source of morbidity in this population. Patients typically present with impaired bone quality and significant comorbidities, which further complicate management. The optimal treatment of these fractures remains controversial. Treatment options range from conservative therapy and isolated vertebral body augmentation procedures - such as vertebroplasty or ballon kyphoplasty - to various posterior instrumentation techniques, and in selected cases, combined posteroanterior surgical stabilization. The choice of treatment depends not only on the specific fracture characteristics but is also influenced by the individual patient's overall condition. There is general consensus that the goals of surgical treatment include providing sufficient stability to enable early mobilization and prevent progressive deformity, achieving reduction of fracture-induced malalignment to restore sagittal alignment, decompressing neural elements in cases of neurological deficits, and ultimately maximizing clinical outcomes.
Percutaneous bisegmental hybrid stabilization is considered a standard treatment option for thoracolumbar fractures in elderly patients [6; 7], particularly for type 3 fractures or higher, as defined by the classification of the Spine Section of the German Society for Orthopaedics and Trauma (DGOU). This stabilization technique involves posterior cement-augmented pedicle screw instrumentation at one level above and below the fracture, combined with balloon kyphoplasty of the fractured vertebral body. While several studies have reported outcomes following combined bisegmental uncemented pedicle screw instrumentation and cement augmentation of the fractured vertebral body, specific data on percutaneous bisegmental hybrid stabilization - incorporating cement augmentation of both the pedicle screws and the fractured vertebra - remain very limited. In a retrospective study of 113 patients aged 60 years or older who underwent polyaxial percutaneous bisegmental hybrid stabilization, reported five in-patient complications (4.4%) and an average Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) score of 29.9±22.2 (range: 0-80) after a mean follow-up of 48 months (range: 24-78 months). The mean loss of reduction was 7.4°±5.6° (range: 0°-25°), with 22% of patients exhibiting a loss of ≥ 10°. Furthermore, a significant correlation was observed between the extent of reduction loss and ODI scores. In a subsequent analysis, the authors identified the superior intervertebral disc adjacent to the fractured vertebral body and the central portion of the vertebral body itself as the primary contributors to reduction loss. Notably, the relative loss of central vertebral body height was the only parameter significantly associated with the overall loss of reduction.
Hybrid stabilization has traditionally been performed using polyaxial pedicle screws, as cannulated and perforated pedicle screws designed for PMMA cement augmentation were only available in the polyaxial variant from various manufacturers. Moreover, polyaxial pedicle screws are commonly used for percutaneous instrumentation due to the ease of rod insertion. However, from a biomechanical perspective, polyaxial screws have several limitations in effective fracture stabilization, particularly when it comes to achieving and maintaining fracture reduction. In cases of a vertebral body fractures, the load-bearing capacity of the anterior column is typically compromised. In such scenarios, the ability of pedicle screw constructs to resist flexion and anterior compressive forces is critical to maintain the intraoperatively achieved fracture reduction. Monoaxial pedicle screws, when attached to a rod, form an angular-stable construct due the fixed axis between the screw head and shaft. In contrast, polyaxial screws feature a screw head that can swivel freely in multiple planes and is connected to the shaft via a coupling mechanism, potentially reducing angular stability between the screw head and shaft. Biomechanical studies have demonstrated that polyaxial screw constructs exhibit reduced stiffness compared to traditional monoaxial systems and fail at lower load levels, typically due to slippage at the screw-head interface. This polyaxial screw-head angular change may result in loss of fracture reduction and contribute to sagittal malalignment. In addition to reduced construct stiffness and the risk of postoperative reduction loss, intraoperative fracture reduction can also be challenging when using polyaxial screws for thoracolumbar fracture stabilization. With monoaxial screws, fracture reduction is typically achieved through direct screw manipulation and attachment to a lordotically pre-contoured rod. In contrast, due to the mobility of the screw heads in polyaxial systems, screw manipulation is less effective, and fracture reduction relies primarily on patient positioning. Consistent with these biomechanical considerations, several clinical studies - predominantly in younger patients - have demonstrated that overall kyphosis correction and vertebral body height restoration are significantly better following monoaxial instrumentation compared to polyaxial constructs. As a result, it has been questioned whether polyaxial instrumentation is capable of restoring anatomic sagittal alignment in the long term, or whether it should be regarded primarily as a means of preventing further collapse of the fractured vertebral body.
Taken together, hybrid stabilization using monoaxial screws may offer superior correction of fracture-induced kyphotic deformity, improved vertebral body height restoration, and reduced postoperative loss of reduction compared to hybrid stabilization with polyaxial screws.
The overall aim of this study is to compare radiological and clinical outcomes following percutaneous bisegmental hybrid stabilization using monoaxial versus polyaxial pedicle screws in patients aged 60 years or older with thoracolumbar fractures (T11-L4).
- Conditions
- Thoracolumbar, Fractures in the Elderly
- Being tested
- Monoaxial instrumentation - the M.U.S.T. Monoaxial Pedicle Screw Cannulated (Medacta International SA, Switzerland), Polyaxial instrumentation - the M.U.S.T. LT Pedicle Screw System (Medacta International SA, Switzerland)
- Keywords
- Thoracolumbar fractures, Percutaneous hybrid stabilization
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Monoaxial instrumentation - the M.U.S.T. Monoaxial Pedicle Screw Cannulated (Medacta International SA, Switzerland)Device
In this study, fractures between the 11th thoracic (T11) and 4th lumbar (L4) vertebra (both included) will be treated surgically using either monoaxial or polyaxial bisegmental hybrid stabilization. Hybrid stabilization consists of posterior cement-augmented pedicle screw instrumentation combined with balloon kyphoplasty of the fractured vertebral body. For bisegmental hybrid stabilization, standard cannulated and perforated pedicle screws, either monoaxial (M.U.S.T. Monoaxial Pedicle Screw Cannulated (Medacta International SA, Switzerland)) or polyaxial (M.U.S.T. LT Pedicle Screw System (Medacta International SA, Switzerland)), will be placed in the vertebrae adjacent to the fractured vertebral body.
Polyaxial instrumentation - the M.U.S.T. LT Pedicle Screw System (Medacta International SA, Switzerland)Device
In this study, fractures between the 11th thoracic (T11) and 4th lumbar (L4) vertebra (both included) will be treated surgically using either monoaxial or polyaxial bisegmental hybrid stabilization. Hybrid stabilization consists of posterior cement-augmented pedicle screw instrumentation combined with balloon kyphoplasty of the fractured vertebral body. For bisegmental hybrid stabilization, standard cannulated and perforated pedicle screws, either monoaxial (M.U.S.T. Monoaxial Pedicle Screw Cannulated (Medacta International SA, Switzerland)) or polyaxial (M.U.S.T. LT Pedicle Screw System (Medacta International SA, Switzerland)), will be placed in the vertebrae adjacent to the fractured vertebral body.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Arm A: Monoaxial hybrid stabilization | Active comparator | Monoaxial pedicle screw hybrid stabilization is a routinal instrumentation technique and will be compared to the polyaxial hybrid stabilization system, that is an routinal instrumentation at the site as well. Receives: Device: Monoaxial instrumentation - the M.U.S.T. Monoaxial Pedicle Screw Cannulated (Medacta International SA, Switzerland) |
| Arm B: Polyaxial hybrid stabilization | Active comparator | Polyaxial pedicle screw hybrid stabilization is a routinal instrumentation technique and will be compared to the monoaxial hybrid stabilization system, that is an routinal instrumentation at the site as well. Receives: Device: Polyaxial instrumentation - the M.U.S.T. LT Pedicle Screw System (Medacta International SA, Switzerland) |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Overall bisegmental kyphosis correction
Overall bisegmental kyphosis correction (OKC) at 6 months postoperatively:
The difference between preoperative bisegmental Cobb angle (BCA) upright and BCA at 6 months (upright) postoperatively describes the overall bisegmental kyphosis correction (OKC) at 6 months postoperatively.
Measured: 6 month
Secondary outcomes (23)
Radiological outcome - Bisegmental Cobb Angle (BCA)
Measured preoperatively (on both supine (BCApreop supine) and upright (BCA) radiographs), after postoperative mobilization, and at 6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months, and 12 months postoperatively Defined as the angle between the superior endplate of the vertebral body above and the inferior endplate of the vertebral body below the fractured vertebra.
Measured: 1 Year
Radiological outcome - Surgical bisegmental kyphosis correction (SKC)
Defined as: Preoperative BCApreop_upright minus BCA after postoperative mobilization in degrees. Both measured on upright radiographs.
Measured: 1-2 weeks after post-op mobilization
Radiological outcome - Loss of bisegmental kyphosis correction
Defined as: BCA after postoperative mobilization minus BCA at 6-month FU in degrees
Measured: 6 month
Radiological outcome - overall bisegmental kyphosis correction (OKC) supine
Defined as: Preoperative BCApreop supine (measured on preoperative supine radiographs) - BCA at 6 months postoperatively in degrees.
Measured: 6 month
Radiological outcome - Surgical bisegmental kyphosis correction (SKC) supine
Defined as: Preoperative BCA preop_supine - BCA after postoperative mobilization in degrees.
Measured: 1-2 weeks after post-op mobilization
Radiological outcome - Vertebral wedge angle (VWA)
Defined as the angle between the superior and inferior endplates of the fractured vertebra in degrees.
Measured: 1 Year
Radiological outcome - Vertebral body height (VBH) in %
The anterior, central, and posterior VBH of the fractured vertebra (V2) will be calculated relative to the adjacent intact vertebrae above (V1) and below (V3), using the following formula:
VBH = V2/((V1+V3)/2)*100%.
Measured: 1 Year
Radiological outcome - Vertebral body compression percentage (VBCP) in %
The percentage of anterior, central and posterior compression of the fractured vertebra (V2) in relation to V1 and V3, calculated as:
VBCP = (((V1 + V3)/2 - V2)/(V1 + V3)/2))*100%
Measured: 1 Year
Radiological outcome - Disc height (DH) [mm]
Anterior, central and posterior DH will be measured for the intervertebral discs immediately above and below the fractured vertebra. Implanted rods will serve as a reference to correct for potential magnification differences between radiographs. Results in mm
Measured: 1 Year
Radiological outcome - The upper disc angle (UDA) and lower disc angle (LDA)
UDA: Angle between the superior endplate of the fractured vertebra and the inferior endplate of the vertebra above.
LDA: Angle between the inferior endplate of the fractured vertebra and the superior endplate of the vertebra below in degree.
Measured: 1 year
Radiological outcome - Accuracy of pedicle screw placement
Evaluated on postoperative CT using multiplanar reconstructions. Cortical pedicle breaches will be classified by grades based on 2 mm increments: Grade A - Grade D
Measured: 1 week Prior to post-op mobilization
Radiological outcome - cement leakage
defined as the presence of any extravertebral cement, will be assessed on postoperative CT imaging at the upper and lower instrumented vertebra (following screw augmentation) as well as the fractured vertebra (following kyphoplasty). The route of leakage will be classified according to Yeom et al. as type B (leakage via the basivertebral vein), type S (leakage via the segmental vein), or type C (leakage through a cortical defect). The anatomical location of leakage will be categorized as perivertebral, spinal canal, intraforaminal, intradiscal, paravertebral soft tissues, or mixed type of leakage.
Measured: 1 week Prior to post-op mobilization
Radiological outcome - Vertebral body height (VBH at Computertomography) in mm
Anterior, central, and posterior VBH of the fractured vertebra will be measured and compared across time points to assess height restoration and maintenance over time.
Measured: 6 month
Radiological outcome - Fracture consolidation
Defined as the presence of bridging trabecular bone across fracture lines and disappearance of visible fracture lines, and no progressive displacement. Consolidation status will be independently assessed by two observers using the 6-month CT scans.
Measured: 6 month
Radiological outcome - Pedicle screw loosening
Assessed on 6-month CT or earlier if symptomatic screw loosening is suspected. Loosening will be defined as the presence of radiolucent zones around the screws exceeding typical metal artifact patterns, as well as any evidence of screw migration or pull-out when compared to the immediate postoperative CT Screw loosening will be independently assessed by two observers.
Measured: 6 month
Complications
All complications that occur within 1 year time frame compared between the groups.
Measured: 1 year
Functional outcome - AO Spine PROST
Patient reported functional outcome score measured with AOSpine Patient Reported Outcome Spine Trauma compared outcome between the two groups. The scale ranges from 0 to 100 points. 0 indicates no function and 100 best function that can be imagined.
Measured: 1 year
Functional outcome - Oswestry Disability Index (ODI)
Patient reported functional outcome score measured with the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) compared between the two groups.
The score has its range from 0 - 50 points, while 50 points is stated as 100%! 80-100% will be scored as bedridden/functionally impaired while 0 point = 0% means mild disability (0-20%). The less the score result the better the function.
Measured: 1 year
Functional outcome - numeric rating scale
Pain level compared between the groups during the postoperative treatment. 0 - 10 points, while 10 points means worst pain imagined and 0 points = no pain.
Measured: 1 year
Functional outcome -EQ-5D-5L
Patient reported functional and general health outcome score measured with EQ-5D-5L compared between the two groups. Level 1 = indicating no problem, 5= indicating unable to/extreme problems. A unique code of 5 digits is given. The higher the level the worse is the funtion/general health. The EQ VAS score is rated on a scale of 0-100 points. 0 points correspond to the worst possible state of health, while 100 points correspond to the best possible state of health.
Measured: 1 year
Functional outcome - Barthel index
Patient reported functional outcome score of daily living and selfcare measured with the Barthel Index.The total score ranges from 0 to 100, with 100 points indicating complete independence and lower scores indicating increasing dependence.
Measured: 1 year
Functional test - Timeg up and Go score
Functional test of gait speed measured with TUG compared between the two groups postoperatively. The results are given in seconds.
Scores under 10 seconds are generally considered normal, while scores over 13.5 to 14 seconds indicate an increased risk of falls. A score above 20 seconds often signals good mobility but with potential issues, and a score over 30 seconds typically indicates a high risk of falls and a need for assistance with mobility.
Measured: 6weeks - 1 Year
Functional outcome - Parker mobility score (PMS)
Patient reported functional outcome score of patients mobility measured with them PMS compared between the two groups. 0-9 point assessment of mobility, with 9 being the highest score for the best mobility
Measured: 1 year
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted13 Feb 2026
- Study start1 Sep 2026
- Primary completion1 Sep 2028 (estimated)
- Study completion1 Nov 2028 (estimated)
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Other trials for ThoracolumbarStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- More trials run by Medical University InnsbruckThe sponsor's other registered studies.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase N/A
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Model description
- A Randomized, Single-Blind Pilot Study
- Masking
- Single blind
- Who is masked
- Participant
- Enrolment
- 44 participants (estimated)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Medical University Innsbruck
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Sponsor
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT07408726
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- Mono vs polyaxial PHS
- Status last verified
- May 2026
- First submitted
- 17 Sep 2025
- Last updated
- 9 Oct 2026
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 9 Oct 2026. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Monoaxial vs. Polyaxial Percutaneous Hybrid Stabilization for Thoracolumbar Fractures in Elderly Patients: A Randomized, Single-Blind Pilot Study
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT07408726
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- Mono vs polyaxial PHS
- Conditions
- Thoracolumbar, Fractures in the Elderly
- Keywords
- Thoracolumbar fractures, Percutaneous hybrid stabilization
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Recruiting
- Enrolment
- 44 participants (estimated)
- Lead sponsor
- Medical University InnsbruckUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- 1 Sep 2026 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 1 Sep 2028 (estimated)
- Study completion
- 1 Nov 2028 (estimated)
- First posted
- 13 Feb 2026 (actual)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
Vertebral body fractures in older adults mostly affect the thoracolumbar junction and are challenging to treat due to osteoporosis and other comorbidities. Treatment options range from conservative approaches to minimally invasive procedures like vertebroplasty or balloon kyphoplasty, as well as surgical techniques such as posterior or combined stabilization. A common method for more severe fractures (from OF3 onwards) is percutaneous bisegmental hybrid stabilization using cement-augmented pedicle screws and balloon kyphoplasty. Polyaxial screws are easier to implant but offer less biomechanical stability. In contrast, monoaxial screws provide greater stiffness, allowing better correction of kyphosis and restoration of vertebral body height. The study compares radiological and clinical outcomes in patients aged 60 and older with thoracolumbar fractures (T11-L4) between monoaxial and polyaxial hybrid stabilization. The primary goal is to evaluate and compare the degree of kyphosis correction six months after surgery.
Detailed description
Vertebral fractures in elderly patients predominantly affect the thoracolumbar spine and continue to pose a significant clinical challenge. These fractures have distinct characteristics, are increasing in incidence, and represent a major source of morbidity in this population. Patients typically present with impaired bone quality and significant comorbidities, which further complicate management. The optimal treatment of these fractures remains controversial. Treatment options range from conservative therapy and isolated vertebral body augmentation procedures - such as vertebroplasty or ballon kyphoplasty - to various posterior instrumentation techniques, and in selected cases, combined posteroanterior surgical stabilization. The choice of treatment depends not only on the specific fracture characteristics but is also influenced by the individual patient's overall condition. There is general consensus that the goals of surgical treatment include providing sufficient stability to enable early mobilization and prevent progressive deformity, achieving reduction of fracture-induced malalignment to restore sagittal alignment, decompressing neural elements in cases of neurological deficits, and ultimately maximizing clinical outcomes.
Percutaneous bisegmental hybrid stabilization is considered a standard treatment option for thoracolumbar fractures in elderly patients [6; 7], particularly for type 3 fractures or higher, as defined by the classification of the Spine Section of the German Society for Orthopaedics and Trauma (DGOU). This stabilization technique involves posterior cement-augmented pedicle screw instrumentation at one level above and below the fracture, combined with balloon kyphoplasty of the fractured vertebral body. While several studies have reported outcomes following combined bisegmental uncemented pedicle screw instrumentation and cement augmentation of the fractured vertebral body, specific data on percutaneous bisegmental hybrid stabilization - incorporating cement augmentation of both the pedicle screws and the fractured vertebra - remain very limited. In a retrospective study of 113 patients aged 60 years or older who underwent polyaxial percutaneous bisegmental hybrid stabilization, reported five in-patient complications (4.4%) and an average Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) score of 29.9±22.2 (range: 0-80) after a mean follow-up of 48 months (range: 24-78 months). The mean loss of reduction was 7.4°±5.6° (range: 0°-25°), with 22% of patients exhibiting a loss of ≥ 10°. Furthermore, a significant correlation was observed between the extent of reduction loss and ODI scores. In a subsequent analysis, the authors identified the superior intervertebral disc adjacent to the fractured vertebral body and the central portion of the vertebral body itself as the primary contributors to reduction loss. Notably, the relative loss of central vertebral body height was the only parameter significantly associated with the overall loss of reduction.
Hybrid stabilization has traditionally been performed using polyaxial pedicle screws, as cannulated and perforated pedicle screws designed for PMMA cement augmentation were only available in the polyaxial variant from various manufacturers. Moreover, polyaxial pedicle screws are commonly used for percutaneous instrumentation due to the ease of rod insertion. However, from a biomechanical perspective, polyaxial screws have several limitations in effective fracture stabilization, particularly when it comes to achieving and maintaining fracture reduction. In cases of a vertebral body fractures, the load-bearing capacity of the anterior column is typically compromised. In such scenarios, the ability of pedicle screw constructs to resist flexion and anterior compressive forces is critical to maintain the intraoperatively achieved fracture reduction. Monoaxial pedicle screws, when attached to a rod, form an angular-stable construct due the fixed axis between the screw head and shaft. In contrast, polyaxial screws feature a screw head that can swivel freely in multiple planes and is connected to the shaft via a coupling mechanism, potentially reducing angular stability between the screw head and shaft. Biomechanical studies have demonstrated that polyaxial screw constructs exhibit reduced stiffness compared to traditional monoaxial systems and fail at lower load levels, typically due to slippage at the screw-head interface. This polyaxial screw-head angular change may result in loss of fracture reduction and contribute to sagittal malalignment. In addition to reduced construct stiffness and the risk of postoperative reduction loss, intraoperative fracture reduction can also be challenging when using polyaxial screws for thoracolumbar fracture stabilization. With monoaxial screws, fracture reduction is typically achieved through direct screw manipulation and attachment to a lordotically pre-contoured rod. In contrast, due to the mobility of the screw heads in polyaxial systems, screw manipulation is less effective, and fracture reduction relies primarily on patient positioning. Consistent with these biomechanical considerations, several clinical studies - predominantly in younger patients - have demonstrated that overall kyphosis correction and vertebral body height restoration are significantly better following monoaxial instrumentation compared to polyaxial constructs. As a result, it has been questioned whether polyaxial instrumentation is capable of restoring anatomic sagittal alignment in the long term, or whether it should be regarded primarily as a means of preventing further collapse of the fractured vertebral body.
Taken together, hybrid stabilization using monoaxial screws may offer superior correction of fracture-induced kyphotic deformity, improved vertebral body height restoration, and reduced postoperative loss of reduction compared to hybrid stabilization with polyaxial screws.
The overall aim of this study is to compare radiological and clinical outcomes following percutaneous bisegmental hybrid stabilization using monoaxial versus polyaxial pedicle screws in patients aged 60 years or older with thoracolumbar fractures (T11-L4).
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Single blind (participant)
- Number of arms
- 2
- Model description
- A Randomized, Single-Blind Pilot Study
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Arm A: Monoaxial hybrid stabilization | Active comparator | Device: Monoaxial instrumentation - the M.U.S.T. Monoaxial Pedicle Screw Cannulated (Medacta International SA, Switzerland)Monoaxial pedicle screw hybrid stabilization is a routinal instrumentation technique and will be compared to the polyaxial hybrid stabilization system, that is an routinal instrumentation at the site as well. |
| Arm B: Polyaxial hybrid stabilization | Active comparator | Device: Polyaxial instrumentation - the M.U.S.T. LT Pedicle Screw System (Medacta International SA, Switzerland)Polyaxial pedicle screw hybrid stabilization is a routinal instrumentation technique and will be compared to the monoaxial hybrid stabilization system, that is an routinal instrumentation at the site as well. |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 60 years and older
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (8 listed)
- Age ≥ 60 years (male and female patients)
- Ability to understand nature, risks, and benefits of study participation and to provide written informed consent.
- Psychosocially, mentally, and physically capable of complying with all study requirements, including scheduled follow-up visits, completion of forms, and participation in all procedures as defined by the protocol.
- Ambulatory prior to fracture, with or without the use of assistive devices
- Acute vertebral fractures located between T11 and L4 (inclusive)
Key exclusion criteria (17 listed)
- Body mass index (BMI) > 35
- Permanent or progressive neurologic deficits (including upper motor neuron disease and myelopathy)
- Rheumatoid arthritis or known disorders of bone metabolism (excluding osteopenia/osteoporosis, Vitamin D deficiency)
- History of radiation therapy to the spine
- History of alcohol or drug abuse within the last 2 years prior to randomization
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| Monoaxial instrumentation - the M.U.S.T. Monoaxial Pedicle Screw Cannulated (Medacta International SA, Switzerland)In this study, fractures between the 11th thoracic (T11) and 4th lumbar (L4) vertebra (both included) will be treated surgically using either monoaxial or polyaxial bisegmental hybrid stabilization. Hybrid stabilization consists of posterior cement-augmented pedicle screw instrumentation combined with balloon kyphoplasty of the fractured vertebral body. For bisegmental hybrid stabilization, standard cannulated and perforated pedicle screws, either monoaxial (M.U.S.T. Monoaxial Pedicle Screw Cannulated (Medacta International SA, Switzerland)) or polyaxial (M.U.S.T. LT Pedicle Screw System (Medacta International SA, Switzerland)), will be placed in the vertebrae adjacent to the fractured vertebral body. | Device | Arm A: Monoaxial hybrid stabilization |
| Polyaxial instrumentation - the M.U.S.T. LT Pedicle Screw System (Medacta International SA, Switzerland)In this study, fractures between the 11th thoracic (T11) and 4th lumbar (L4) vertebra (both included) will be treated surgically using either monoaxial or polyaxial bisegmental hybrid stabilization. Hybrid stabilization consists of posterior cement-augmented pedicle screw instrumentation combined with balloon kyphoplasty of the fractured vertebral body. For bisegmental hybrid stabilization, standard cannulated and perforated pedicle screws, either monoaxial (M.U.S.T. Monoaxial Pedicle Screw Cannulated (Medacta International SA, Switzerland)) or polyaxial (M.U.S.T. LT Pedicle Screw System (Medacta International SA, Switzerland)), will be placed in the vertebrae adjacent to the fractured vertebral body. | Device | Arm B: Polyaxial hybrid stabilization |
Primary outcome
Overall bisegmental kyphosis correction
Time frame: 6 month
Overall bisegmental kyphosis correction (OKC) at 6 months postoperatively: The difference between preoperative bisegmental Cobb angle (BCA) upright and BCA at 6 months (upright) postoperatively describes the overall bisegmental kyphosis correction (OKC) at 6 months postoperatively.
23 secondary outcomes
Radiological outcome - Bisegmental Cobb Angle (BCA)
Time frame: 1 Year
Radiological outcome - Surgical bisegmental kyphosis correction (SKC)
Time frame: 1-2 weeks after post-op mobilization
Radiological outcome - Loss of bisegmental kyphosis correction
Time frame: 6 month
Radiological outcome - overall bisegmental kyphosis correction (OKC) supine
Time frame: 6 month
Radiological outcome - Surgical bisegmental kyphosis correction (SKC) supine
Time frame: 1-2 weeks after post-op mobilization
Radiological outcome - Vertebral wedge angle (VWA)
Time frame: 1 Year
Radiological outcome - Vertebral body height (VBH) in %
Time frame: 1 Year
Radiological outcome - Vertebral body compression percentage (VBCP) in %
Time frame: 1 Year
Radiological outcome - Disc height (DH) [mm]
Time frame: 1 Year
Radiological outcome - The upper disc angle (UDA) and lower disc angle (LDA)
Time frame: 1 year
Radiological outcome - Accuracy of pedicle screw placement
Time frame: 1 week Prior to post-op mobilization
Radiological outcome - cement leakage
Time frame: 1 week Prior to post-op mobilization
Radiological outcome - Vertebral body height (VBH at Computertomography) in mm
Time frame: 6 month
Radiological outcome - Fracture consolidation
Time frame: 6 month
Radiological outcome - Pedicle screw loosening
Time frame: 6 month
Complications
Time frame: 1 year
Functional outcome - AO Spine PROST
Time frame: 1 year
Functional outcome - Oswestry Disability Index (ODI)
Time frame: 1 year
Functional outcome - numeric rating scale
Time frame: 1 year
Functional outcome -EQ-5D-5L
Time frame: 1 year
Functional outcome - Barthel index
Time frame: 1 year
Functional test - Timeg up and Go score
Time frame: 6weeks - 1 Year
Functional outcome - Parker mobility score (PMS)
Time frame: 1 year
Results and safety
This study is still under way. Results are not available in the source record yet.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 9 Oct 2026.
Related trials for Thoracolumbar
Active, not recruiting
The Role Of Fascia And Breathing Exercises In The Treatment Of Cervicogenic Headache
Cervicogenic Headache
Not yet recruiting
Erector Spinae Plane Block With or Without Thoracolumbar Fascia Injection for Chronic Low Back Pain
Chronic Low Back Pain
Active, not recruiting
StUdy oN Burst Fractures (SunBurst)
Thoracolumbar Burst Fracture
Recruiting
Modified Thoracolumbar Interfascial Plane Block vs Retrolaminar Block for Pain in Lumbar Spine Surgeries
Postoperative Pain After Spinal Surgery
Recruiting
Managing Kyphosis With Exercise
Kyphosis
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part.
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing Monoaxial instrumentation - the M.U.S.T. Monoaxial Pedicle Screw Cannulated (Medacta International SA, Switzerland) and Polyaxial instrumentation - the M.U.S.T. LT Pedicle Screw System (Medacta International SA, Switzerland) in people with Thoracolumbar and Fractures in the Elderly, run by Medical University Innsbruck at 1 site in Austria.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 8 inclusion and 17 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: looking for participants now, as of the sponsor's last update on 9 Oct 2026. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 1 site in Austria. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
This study is still under way. Results are not available in the source record yet.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
Contact Mariette Widner, MSc (0512 504 80328, lki.ot.studienkoordination@tirol-kliniken.at), or a site near the patient. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Overall bisegmental kyphosis correction (time frame: 6 month). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 9 Oct 2026.