Search

The treatment of unilateral CFD in patients without neurologic deficits remains controversial, especially in the choice of the best surgical approach. Our objective is to determine the way spine surgeons from Latin America manage this condition. A survey regarding management and surgical strategies was conducted by the AO Spine Latin American Trauma Study Group considering the treatment of unilateral CFD. All AO Spine Latin American Trauma Study Group members were sent a link to the survey, among whom 285 replied, with 197 respondents answering all the questions. Nonsurgical management was considered by 25% of the surgeons. The majority stated that magnetic resonance imaging is necessary (65%) to treat this type of patient. A posterior approach was preferred by 44%, an anterior approach by 29%, and a combined approach by 25%, while 2.2% did not answer. Traction was not used by the majority of respondents (62%). In the setting of an anterior disk herniation, the majority of surgeons preferred to employ an anterior (45%) or combined (44%) approach versus an isolated posterior approach (only 0.5%). Comparing early versus late cervical trauma, fewer surgeons adopted an isolated anterior approach with the latter (29% vs. 15%). Wide variations exist in the management of unilateral CFD by Latin American surgeons, with early injuries generally treated using either an anterior or posterior approach and treated early but after an MRI, while a combined approach is used more commonly with late injuries. Either an anterior or combined approach is used when disk herniation is present. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Spinal Instability Neoplastic Score (SINS) classification system is a validated and the most widely accepted instrument for defining instability in vertebral metastasis (VM), in which lesions scoring between 7 and 12 are defined as indeterminate and the treatment is controversial. This study aimed to determine which variables more frequently are considered by spine surgeons for choosing between the conservative and the surgical treatment of VMs among patients with an indeterminate SINS. A single-round online survey was conducted with 10 spine surgeons with expertise in the management of VMs from our AO Spine Region. In this survey, each surgeon independently reviewed demographic and cancer-related variables of 36 real-life cases of patients with vertebral metastases scored between 7 and 12 in the SINS. Bivariate and multivariate analyses were performed to identify significant SINS and non-SINS variables influencing the decision-making on surgical treatment. The most commonly variables considered important were the SINS element "mechanical pain", rated important for 44.4% of the cases, "lesion type" for 36.1%, and "degree of vertebral collapse" and the non-SINS factor "tumor histology" rated for 13.9% of cases. By far the factor most commonly rated unimportant was "posterior element compromise" (in 72.2% of cases). Surgeons relied on mechanical pain and type of metastatic lesion for treatment choices. Vertebral collapse, spinal malalignment, and mobility were less influential. Spinal mobility was a predictor of surgical versus non-surgical treatment. The only variables not identified either by surgeons themselves or as a predictor of surgery selection was the presence/degree of posterolateral/posterior element involvement. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Context: The complex anatomy of the upper cervical spine resulted in numerous separate classification systems of upper cervical spine trauma. The AOSpine upper cervical classification system (UCCS) was recently described; however, an independent agreement assessment has not been performed.Purpose: To perform an independent evaluation of the AOSpine UCCS.Study Design: Agreement study.Patient Sample: Eighty four patients with upper cervical spine injuries.Outcome Measures: Inter-observer agreement; intra-observer agreement.Methods: Complete imaging studies of 84 patients with upper cervical spine injuries, including all morphological types of injuries defined by the AOSpine UCCS were selected and classified by six evaluators (from three different countries). The 84 cases were presented to the same raters randomly after a 4-week interval for repeat evaluation. The Kappa coefficient (κ) was used to determine inter- and intra-observer agreement.Results: The interobserver agreement was almost perfect when considering the fracture site (I, II or III), with κ=0.82 (0.78-0.83), but the agreement according to the site and type level was moderate, κ=0.57 (0.55-0.65). The intra-observer agreement was almost perfect considering the injury, with κ=0.83 (0.78-0.86), while according to site and type was substantial, κ=0.69 (0.67-0.71).Conclusions: We observed only a moderate inter-observer agreement using this classification. We believe our results can be explained because this classification attempted to organize many different injury types into a single scheme. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Sacral fractures treatment frequently involves both spine and pelvic trauma surgeons; therefore, a consistent communication among surgical specialists is required. We independently assessed the new AOSpine sacral fracture classification's agreement from the perspective of spine and pelvic trauma surgeons.Methods: Complete computerized tomography (CT) scans of 80 patients with sacral fractures were selected and classified using the new AOSpine sacral classification system by six spine surgeons and three pelvic trauma surgeons. After four weeks, the 80 cases were presented and reassessed by the same raters in a new random sequence. The Kappa coefficient (κ) was used to measure the inter-and intra-observer agreement.Results: The inter-observer agreement considering the fracture severity types (A, B, or C) was substantial for spine surgeons (κ= 0.68 [0.63 - 0.72]) and pelvic trauma surgeons (κ= 0.74 (0.64 - 0.84). Regarding the subtypes, both groups achieved moderate agreement with κ= 0.52 (0.49 - 0.54) for spine surgeons and κ= 0.51 (0.45 - 0.57) for pelvic trauma surgeons. The intra-observer agreement considering the fracture types was substantial for spine surgeons (κ= 0.74 [0.63 - 0.75]) and almost perfect for pelvic trauma surgeons (κ= 0.84 [0.74 - 0.93]). Concerning the subtypes, both groups achieved substantial agreement with, κ= 0.61 (0.56 - 0.67) for spine surgeons and κ= 0.68 (0.62 - 0.74) for pelvic trauma surgeons.Conclusion: This classification allows an adequate communication for spine surgeons and pelvic trauma surgeons at the fracture severity type, but the agreement is only moderate at the subtype level. Future prospective studies are required to evaluate whether this classification allows for treatment recommendations and establishing prognosis in patients with sacral fractures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Context: The AOSpine sacral classification scheme was recently described. It demonstrated substantial interobserver and excellent intraobserver agreement in the study describing it; however, an independent assessment has not been performed.Purpose: To perform an independent inter- and intraobserver agreement evaluation of the AOSpine sacral fracture classification system.Study Design: Agreement study.Methods: Complete computerized tomography (CT) scans, including axial images, with coronal and sagittal reconstructions of 80 patients with sacral fractures were selected and classified using the morphologic grading of the AOSpine sacral classification system by six evaluators (from three different countries). Neurological modifiers and case-specific modifiers were not assessed. After a four-week interval, the 80 cases were presented to the same raters in a random sequence for repeat assessment. We used the Kappa coefficient (κ) to establish the inter- and intraobserver agreement.Results: The interobserver agreement was substantial when considering the fracture severity types (A, B, or C), with κ=0.68 (0.63-0.72), but moderate when considering the subtypes: κ=0.52 (0.49-0.54). The intraobserver agreement was substantial considering the fracture types, with κ=0.69 (0.63-0.75), and considering subtypes, κ=0.61 (0.56-0.67).Conclusion: The sacral classification system allows adequate interobserver agreement at the type level, but only moderate at the subtypes level. Future prospective studies should evaluate whether this classification system allows surgeons to decide the best treatment and to establish prognosis in patients with sacral fractures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]