Search

Purpose: To validate the AO Spine Subaxial Injury Classification System with participants of various experience levels, subspecialties, and geographic regions. Methods: A live webinar was organized in 2020 for validation of the AO Spine Subaxial Injury Classification System. The validation consisted of 41 unique subaxial cervical spine injuries with associated computed tomography scans and key images. Intraobserver reproducibility and interobserver reliability of the AO Spine Subaxial Injury Classification System were calculated for injury morphology, injury subtype, and facet injury. The reliability and reproducibility of the classification system were categorized as slight (ƙ = 0–0.20), fair (ƙ = 0.21–0.40), moderate (ƙ = 0.41–0.60), substantial (ƙ = 0.61–0.80), or excellent (ƙ = > 0.80) as determined by the Landis and Koch classification. Results: A total of 203 AO Spine members participated in the AO Spine Subaxial Injury Classification System validation. The percent of participants accurately classifying each injury was over 90% for fracture morphology and fracture subtype on both assessments. The interobserver reliability for fracture morphology was excellent (ƙ = 0.87), while fracture subtype (ƙ = 0.80) and facet injury were substantial (ƙ = 0.74). The intraobserver reproducibility for fracture morphology and subtype were excellent (ƙ = 0.85, 0.88, respectively), while reproducibility for facet injuries was substantial (ƙ = 0.76). Conclusion: The AO Spine Subaxial Injury Classification System demonstrated excellent interobserver reliability and intraobserver reproducibility for fracture morphology, substantial reliability and reproducibility for facet injuries, and excellent reproducibility with substantial reliability for injury subtype. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: This study aims to analyze the incidence and outcomes of bicycle-related injuries in hospitalized patients in The Netherlands. Methods: Bicycle accidents resulting in hospitalization in a level-I trauma center in The Netherlands between 2007 and 2017 were retrospectively identified. We subcategorized data of patients involved in a regular bicycle, race bike, off-road bike or e-bike accident. The primary outcomes were mortality rate and incidence of multitrauma. Secondary outcomes were differences between bicycle subcategories. Independent risk factors were identified using multivariable logistic regression. All variables with a p value < 0.20 in univariable analysis were entered in multivariable analysis. Results: We identified 1986 patients. The mortality rate after emergency room admission was 5.7%, and 41.0% were multitraumas. A higher age, multitrauma and cerebral haemorrhages were independent risk factors for in hospital mortality. Independent risk factors found for multitrauma were a higher age, two-sided trauma, e-bike accidents and cerebral haemorrhage. Conclusion: Bicycle accidents resulting in hospitalization have a high mortality rate. Furthermore, a high incidence of multitrauma, fractures and cerebral haemorrhages were found. Considering the increasing incidence of bicycle accident victims needing hospital admission, new and more efficient prevention strategies are essential. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Many systematic reviews have been published on surgical interventions for low back disorders. The objective of this overview was to evaluate the available evidence from systematic reviews on the effectiveness of surgical interventions for disc herniation, spondylolisthesis, stenosis, and degenerative disc disease (DDD). An earlier version of this review was published in 2006 and since then, many new, better quality reviews have been published. Methods: A comprehensive search was performed in the Cochrane database of systematic reviews (CDSR), database of reviews of effectiveness (DARE) and Pubmed. Two reviewers independently performed the selection of studies, risk of bias assessment, and data extraction. Included are Cochrane reviews and non-Cochrane systematic reviews published in peer-reviewed journals. The following conditions were included: disc herniation, spondylolisthesis, and DDD with or without spinal stenosis. The following comparisons were evaluated: (1) surgery vs. conservative care, and (2) different surgical techniques compared to one another. The methodological quality of the systematic reviews was evaluated using AMSTAR. We report (pooled) analyses from the individual reviews. Results: Thirteen systematic reviews on surgical interventions for low back disorders were included for disc herniation ( n = 6), spondylolisthesis ( n = 2), spinal stenosis ( n = 4), and DDD ( n = 4). Nine (69 %) were of high quality. Five reviews provided a meta-analysis of which two showed a significant difference. For the treatment of spinal stenosis, intervertebral process devices showed more favorable results compared to conservative treatment on the Zurich Claudication Questionnaire [mean difference (MD) 23.2 95 % CI 18.5-27.8]. For degenerative spondylolisthesis, fusion showed more favorable results compared to decompression for a mixed aggregation of clinical outcome measures (RR 1.40 95 % CI 1.04-1.89) and fusion rate favored instrumented fusion over non-instrumented fusion (RR 1.37 95 % CI 1.07-1.75). Conclusions: For most of the comparisons, the included reviews were not significant and/or clinically relevant differences between interventions were identified. Although the quality of the reviews was quite acceptable, the quality of the included studies was poor. Future studies are likely to influence our assessment of these interventions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]