Background/Aim: Regarding the surgical treatment of incomplete burst fractures of the spine, no optimal standard procedure has been established. While previous studies have focused on radiological and surgical outcome parameters, the literature has not elucidated economic aspects of various surgical treatment options in detail yet. This study aimed to investigate whether open and minimal-invasive approaches differ in their economic profit gain. Furthermore, we examined whether a single-stage or two-stage approach of anterior-posterior fusion was more profitable. Patients and Methods: By analyzing retrospectively data of 129 patients who underwent surgical procedure due to isolated incomplete burst fractures, we examined the economic profit and radiological parameter of open pedicle screw insertion, minimal-invasive techniques (percutaneous screws, percutaneous screws combined with SpineJack^®, kyphoplasty or SpineJack^®), and anterior-posterior fusion. Results: Percutaneous screws in combination with SpineJack^® gained significantly higher profit and higher profit per day of hospital length of stay. Profit was similar after single-stage and two-stage approach of vertebral body replacement. No significant difference in radiological outcome after 24 months was detected between the various surgical techniques. Conclusion: From a financial aspect, our finding suggests that application of percutaneous screws in combination with SpineJack^® may generate the highest economic profit gain regarding treatment of incomplete burst fracture.

(1) Background: The reconstruction of periacetabular defects after tumor resection remains one of the most challenging procedures in orthopaedic oncology. The modular LUMiC^® system was designed to improve fixation stability and reduce implant-related complications compared with earlier hemipelvic prostheses. We investigated patient and implant survival after LUMiC^® reconstruction, complication types and functional outcomes. (2) Methods: Eighteen patients (8 men, 10 women; mean age 58.9 years) underwent LUMiC^® endoprosthetic reconstruction between 2011 and 2025. Kaplan–Meier analysis was used to estimate patient and implant survival. Complications were categorized according to Henderson. Functional results were evaluated at follow-up using MSTS and TESS. (3) Results: Mean follow-up was 35.52 months (SD 36.89). Overall implant survival was 72.2%. Instability (27.8%) and infection (16.7%) were the leading complications. Two-thirds of patients required at least one revision (mean 3.1 revisions per case). Metastatic disease reduced patient survival (p = 0.012) but did not affect implant longevity (p = 0.31). Functional outcomes were available for only 3 of 18 patients and should therefore be regarded as exploratory. Mean MSTS was 58.9% (SD 21.43) and mean TESS was 73.4% (SD 6.836). (4) Conclusions: Despite high revision rates, the LUMiC^® prosthesis provides durable fixation. Early revision does not appear to compromise implant survival. However, the small and heterogeneous cohort represents a limiting factor of this study.