RESUMO

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data. OBJECTIVES: To compare decision-making between an expert panel and real-world spine surgeons in thoracolumbar burst fractures (TLBFs) without neurological deficits and analyze which factors influence surgical decision-making. METHODS: This study is a sub-analysis of a prospective observational study in TL fractures. Twenty two experts were asked to review 183 CT scans and recommend treatment for each fracture. The expert recommendation was based on radiographic review. RESULTS: Overall agreement between the expert panel and real-world surgeons regarding surgery was 63.2%. In 36.8% of cases, the expert panel recommended surgery that was not performed in real-world scenarios. Conversely, in cases where the expert panel recommended non-surgical treatment, only 38.6% received non-surgical treatment, while 61.4% underwent surgery. A separate analysis of A3 and A4 fractures revealed that expert panel recommended surgery for 30% of A3 injuries and 68% of A4 injuries. However, 61% of patients with both A3 and A4 fractures received surgery in the real world. Multivariate analysis demonstrated that a 1% increase in certainty of PLC injury led to a 4% increase in surgery recommendation among the expert panel, while a .2% increase in the likelihood of receiving surgery in the real world. CONCLUSION: Surgical decision-making varied between the expert panel and real-world treating surgeons. Differences appear to be less evident in A3/A4 burst fractures making this specific group of fractures a real challenge independent of the level of expertise.

RESUMO

STUDY DESIGN: Global cross-sectional survey. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to validate the hierarchical nature of the AO Spine Sacral Classification System and develop an injury scoring system. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Although substantial interobserver and intraobserver reliability of the AO Spine Sacral Classification System has been established, the hierarchical nature of the classification has yet to be validated. METHODS: Respondents numerically graded each variable within the classification system for severity. Based on the results, a Sacral AO Spine Injury Score (AOSIS) was developed. RESULTS: A total of 142 responses were received. The classification exhibited a hierarchical Injury Severity Score (ISS) progression (A1: 8 to C3: 95) with few exceptions. Subtypes B1 and B2 fractures showed no significant difference in ISS (B1 43.9 vs. B2 43.4, P =0.362). In addition, the transitions A3→B1 and B3→C0 represent significant decreases in ISS (A3 66.3 vs. B1 43.9, P <0.001; B3 64.2 vs. C0 46.4, P <0.001). Accordingly, A1 injury was assigned a score of 0. A2 and A3 received scores of 1 and 3 points, respectively. Posterior pelvic injuries B1 and B2 both received a score of 2. B3 received a score of 3 points. C0, C1, C2, and C3 received scores of 2, 3, 5, and 6 points, respectively. The scores assigned to neurological modifiers N0, N1, N2, N3, and NX were 0, 1, 2, 4, and 3, respectively. Case-specific modifiers M1, M2, M3, and M4 received scores of 0, 0, 1, and 2 points, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study validate the hierarchical nature of the AO Spine Sacral Classification System. The Sacral AOSIS sets the foundation for further studies to develop a universally accepted treatment algorithm for the treatment of complex sacral injuries. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV-Diagnostic.

Assuntos

RESUMO

STUDY DESIGN: Global cross-sectional survey. OBJECTIVE: To determine the classification accuracy, interobserver reliability, and intraobserver reproducibility of the AO Spine Upper Cervical Injury Classification System based on an international group of AO Spine members. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Previous upper cervical spine injury classifications have primarily been descriptive without incorporating a hierarchical injury progression within the classification system. Further, upper cervical spine injury classifications have focused on distinct anatomical segments within the upper cervical spine. The AO Spine Upper Cervical Injury Classification System incorporates all injuries of the upper cervical spine into a single classification system focused on a hierarchical progression from isolated bony injuries (type A) to fracture dislocations (type C). METHODS: A total of 275 AO Spine members participated in a validation aimed at classifying 25 upper cervical spine injuries through computed tomography scans according to the AO Spine Upper Cervical Classification System. The validation occurred on two separate occasions, three weeks apart. Descriptive statistics for percent agreement with the gold-standard were calculated and the Pearson χ 2 test evaluated significance between validation groups. Kappa coefficients (κ) determined the interobserver reliability and intraobserver reproducibility. RESULTS: The accuracy of AO Spine members to appropriately classify upper cervical spine injuries was 79.7% on assessment 1 (AS1) and 78.7% on assessment 2 (AS2). The overall intraobserver reproducibility was substantial (κ=0.70), while the overall interobserver reliability for AS1 and AS2 was substantial (κ=0.63 and κ=0.61, respectively). Injury location had higher interobserver reliability (AS1: κ = 0.85 and AS2: κ=0.83) than the injury type (AS1: κ=0.59 and AS2: 0.57) on both assessments. CONCLUSION: The global validation of the AO Spine Upper Cervical Injury Classification System demonstrated substantial interobserver agreement and intraobserver reproducibility. These results support the universal applicability of the AO Spine Upper Cervical Injury Classification System. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4.

Assuntos

RESUMO

The upper cervical spine accounts for the largest proportion of cervical range of motion afforded by a complex system of bony morphology and ligamentous stability. Its unique anatomy, however, also makes it particularly vulnerable during both low and high energy trauma. Trauma to this area, referred to as upper cervical spine trauma, can disrupt the stability of the upper cervical spine and result in a wide spectrum of injury. Numerous upper cervical injury classification systems have been proposed, each of which have distinct limitations and drawbacks that have prevented their universal adoption. In this article, we provide an overview of previous classifications, with an emphasis on the development of the new AO Spine Upper Cervical Classification System (AO Spine UCCS).

Assuntos

RESUMO

OBJECTIVES: To (1) demonstrate that the AO Spine Sacral Classification System can be reliably applied by general orthopaedic surgeons and subspecialists universally around the world and (2) delineate those injury subtypes that are most difficult to classify reliably to refine the classification before evaluating clinical outcomes. DESIGN: Agreement study. SETTING: All-level trauma centers, worldwide. PARTICIPANTS: One hundred seventy-two members of the AO Trauma and AO Spine community. INTERVENTION: The AO Sacral Classification System was applied by each surgeon to 26 cases in 2 independent assessments performed 3 weeks apart. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Interobserver reliability and intraobserver reproducibility. RESULTS: A total of 8097 case assessments were performed. The kappa coefficient for interobserver agreement for all cases was 0.72/0.75 (assessment 1/assessment 2), representing substantial reliability. When comparing classification grading (A/B/C) regardless of subtype, the kappa coefficient was 0.84/0.85, corresponding to excellent reliability. The kappa coefficients for interobserver reliability were 0.95/0.93 for type A fractures, 0.78/0.79 for type B fractures, and 0.80/0.83 for type C fractures. The overall kappa statistic for intraobserver reliability was 0.82 (range 0.18-1.00), representing excellent reproducibility. When only evaluating morphology type (A/B/C), the average kappa value was 0.87 (range 0.18-1.00), representing excellent reproducibility. CONCLUSION: The AO Spine Sacral Classification System is universally reliable among general orthopaedic surgeons and subspecialists worldwide, with substantial interobserver and excellent intraobserver reliability.

Assuntos

RESUMO

STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey. OBJECTIVE: To determine the influence of surgeons' level of experience and subspeciality training on the reliability, reproducibility, and accuracy of sacral fracture classification using the Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Osteosynthesefragen Spine Sacral Classification System. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: A surgeons' level of experience or subspecialty may have a significant effect on the reliability and accuracy of sacral classification given various levels of comfort with imaging assessment required for accurate diagnosis and classification. METHODS: High-resolution computerized tomography (CT) images from 26 cases were assessed on two separate occasions by 172 investigators representing a diverse array of surgical subspecialities (general orthopedics, neurosurgery, orthopedic spine, orthopedic trauma) and experience (<5, 5-10, 11-20, >20 yrs). Reliability and reproducibility were calculated with Cohen kappa coefficient (k) and gold standard classification agreement was determined for each fracture morphology and subtype and stratified by experience and subspeciality. RESULTS: Respondents achieved an overall k = 0.87 for morphology and k = 0.77 for subtype classification, representing excellent and substantial intraobserver reproducibility, respectively. Respondents from all four practice experience groups demonstrated excellent interobserver reliability when classifying overall morphology (k = 0.842/0.850, Assessment 1/Assessment 2) and substantial interobserver reliability in overall subtype (k = 0.719/0.751) in both assessments. General orthopedists, neurosurgeons, and orthopedic spine surgeons exhibited excellent interobserver reliability in overall morphology classification and substantial interobserver reliability in overall subtype classification. Surgeons in each experience category and subspecialty correctly classified fracture morphology in over 90% of cases and fracture subtype in over 80% of cases according to the gold standard. Correct overall classification of fracture morphology (Assessment 1: P = 0.024, Assessment 2: P = 0.006) and subtype (P2 < 0.001) differed significantly by years of experience but not by subspecialty. CONCLUSION: Overall, the Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Osteosynthesefragen spine sacral classification system appears to be universally applicable among surgeons of various subspecialties and levels of experience with acceptable reliability, reproducibility, and accuracy.Level of Evidence: 4.

Assuntos

RESUMO

STUDY DESIGN: Global cross-sectional survey. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to validate the AO Spine Subaxial Cervical Spine Injury Classification by examining the perceived injury severity by surgeon across AO geographical regions and practice experience. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Previous subaxial cervical spine injury classifications have been limited by subpar interobserver reliability and clinical applicability. In an attempt to create a universally validated scheme with prognostic value, AO Spine established a subaxial cervical spine injury classification involving four elements: injury morphology, facet injury involvement, neurologic status, and case-specific modifiers. METHODS: A survey was sent to 272 AO Spine members across all geographic regions and with a variety of practice experience. Respondents graded the severity of each variable of the classification system on a scale from zero (low severity) to 100 (high severity). Primary outcome was to assess differences in perceived injury severity for each injury type over geographic regions and level of practice experience. RESULTS: A total of 189 responses were received. Overall, the classification system exhibited a hierarchical progression in subtype injury severity scores. Only three subtypes showed a significant difference in injury severity score among geographic regions: F3 (floating lateral mass fracture, P = 0.04), N3 (incomplete spinal cord injury, P = 0.03), and M2 (critical disk herniation, P = 0.04). When stratified by surgeon experience, pairwise comparison showed only two morphological subtypes, B1 (bony posterior tension band injury, P = 0.02) and F2 (unstable facet fracture, P = 0.03), and one neurologic subtype (N3, P = 0.02) exhibited a significant difference in injury severity score. CONCLUSION: The AO Spine Subaxial Cervical Spine Injury Classification System has shown to be reliable and suitable for proper patient management. The study shows this classification is substantially generalizable by geographic region and surgeon experience, and provides a consistent method of communication among physicians while covering the majority of subaxial cervical spine traumatic injuries.Level of Evidence: 4.

Assuntos