Search

Purpose: To evaluate feasibility, internal consistency, inter-rater reliability, and prospective validity of AO Spine CROST (Clinician Reported Outcome Spine Trauma) in the clinical setting., Methods: Patients were included from four trauma centers. Two surgeons with substantial amount of experience in spine trauma care were included from each center. Two separate questionnaires were administered at baseline, 6-months and 1-year: one to surgeons (mainly CROST) and another to patients (AO Spine PROST-Patient Reported Outcome Spine Trauma). Descriptive statistics were used to analyze patient characteristics and feasibility, Cronbach's α for internal consistency. Inter-rater reliability through exact agreement, Kappa statistics and Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC). Prospective analysis, and relationships between CROST and PROST were explored through descriptive statistics and Spearman correlations., Results: In total, 92 patients were included. CROST showed excellent feasibility results. Internal consistency (α = 0.58-0.70) and reliability (ICC = 0.52 and 0.55) were moderate. Mean total scores between surgeons only differed 0.2-0.9 with exact agreement 48.9-57.6%. Exact agreement per CROST item showed good results (73.9-98.9%). Kappa statistics revealed moderate agreement for most CROST items. In the prospective analysis a trend was only seen when no concerns at all were expressed by the surgeon (CROST = 0), and moderate to strong positive Spearman correlations were found between CROST at baseline and the scores at follow-up (r s  = 0.41-0.64). Comparing the CROST with PROST showed no specific association, nor any Spearman correlations (r s  = -0.33-0.07)., Conclusions: The AO Spine CROST showed moderate validity in a true clinical setting including patients from the daily clinical practice., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Purpose: The AO Spine PROST (Patient Reported Outcome Spine Trauma) was developed for people with spine trauma and minor or no neurological impairment. The purpose is to investigate health professionals' perspective on the applicability of the AO Spine PROST for people with motor-complete traumatic or non-traumatic spinal cord injury (SCI), using a discussion meeting and international survey study., Methods: A discussion meeting with SCI rehabilitation physicians in the Netherlands was performed, followed by a worldwide online survey among the AO Spine International community, involved in the care of people with SCI. Participants rated the comprehensibility, relevance, acceptability, feasibility and completeness of the AO Spine PROST on a 1-5 point scale (5 most positive). Comments could be provided per question., Results: The discussion meeting was attended by 13 SCI rehabilitation physicians. The survey was completed by 196 participants. Comprehensibility (mean ± SD: 4.1 ± 0.8), acceptability (4.0 ± 0.8), relevance (3.9 ± 0.8), completeness (3.9 ± 0.8), and feasibility (4.1 ± 0.7) of the AO Spine PROST were rated positively for use in people with motor-complete traumatic or non-traumatic SCI. Only a few participants questioned the relevance of items on the lower extremities (e.g., walking) or missed items on pulmonary functioning and complications. Some recommendations were made for improvement in instructions, terminology and examples of the tool., Conclusion: Health professionals found the AO Spine PROST generally applicable for people with motor-complete traumatic or non-traumatic SCI. This study provides further evidence for the use of the AO Spine PROST in spine trauma care, rehabilitation and research, as well as suggestions for its further development., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Study Design: Survey among spine experts., Objective: To investigate the different views and opinions of clinically relevant spinal post-traumatic deformity (SPTD)., Summary of Background Data: There is no clear definition of clinically relevant SPTD. This leads to a wide variation in characteristics used for diagnosis and treatment indications of SPTD. To understand the current concepts of SPTD a survey was conducted among spine trauma surgeons., Methods: Members of the AO Spine Knowledge Forum Trauma participated in an online survey. The survey was divided in 4 domains: Demographics, criteria to define SPTD, risk factors, and management. The data were collected anonymously and analyzed using descriptive statistics, absolute, and relative frequencies. Consensus on dichotomous outcomes was set to 80% of agreement., Results: Fifteen members with extensive experience in treatment of spinal trauma participated, representing the 5 AO Spine Regions. Back pain was the only criterion for definition of SPTD with complete agreement. Consensus (≥80%) was reached for kyphotic angulation outside normative ranges and impaired function. Eighty-seven percent and 100% agreed that a full-spine conventional radiograph was necessary in diagnosing and treating SPTD, respectively. The "missed B-type injury" was rated at most important by all but 1 participant. There was no agreement on other risk factors leading to clinically relevant SPTD. Concerning the management, all participants agreed that an asymptomatic patient should not undergo surgical treatment and that neurological deficit is an absolute surgical indication. For most of the participants the preferred surgical treatment of acute injury in all spine regions but the subaxial region is posterior fixation., Conclusion: Some consensus exists among leading experts in the field of spine trauma care concerning the definition, diagnosis, risk factors, and management of SPTD. This study acts as the foundation for a Delphi study among the global spine community., Competing Interests: Dr Schroeder has received funds to travel from AO Spine and Medtronic. Dr Vaccaro has consulted or has done independent contracting for DePuy, Medtronic, Stryker Spine, Globus, Stout Medical, Gerson Lehrman Group, Guidepoint Global, Medacorp, Innovative Surgical Design, Orthobullets, Ellipse, and Vertex. He has also served on the scientific advisory board/board of directors/committees for Flagship Surgical, AO Spine, Innovative Surgical Design, and Association of Collaborative Spine Research. Dr Vaccaro has received royalty payments from Medtronic, Stryker Spine, Globus, Aesculap, Thieme, Jaypee, Elsevier, and Taylor Francis/Hodder and Stoughton. He has stock/stock option ownership interests in Replication Medica, Globus, Paradigm Spine, Stout Medical, Progressive Spinal Technologies, Advanced Spinal Intellectual Properties, Spine Medica, Computational Biodynamics, Spinology, In Vivo, Flagship Surgical, Cytonics, Bonovo Orthopaedics, Electrocore, Gamma Spine, Location Based Intelligence, FlowPharma, R.S.I., Rothman Institute and Related Properties, Innovative Surgical Design, and Avaz Surgical. In addition, Dr Vaccaro has also provided expert testimony. He has also served as deputy editor/editor of Clinical Spine Surgery. The remaining authors declare no conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2022 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

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., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Background: Traumatic Spinal Injuries (TSI) often follow high velocity injuries and frequently accompanied by polytrauma. While most studies have focussed on outcomes of spinal cord injuries, the incidence and risk factors that predict morbidity and mortality after TSI has not been well-defined., Methods: Data of consecutive patients of TSI (n = 2065) treated over a 5-year-period were evaluated for demographics, injury mechanisms, neurological status, associated injuries, timing of surgery and co-morbidities. The thirty-day incidence and risk factors for complications, length of stay and mortality were analysed., Results: The incidence of spinal trauma was 6.2%. Associated injuries were seen in 49.7% (n = 1028), and 33.5% (n = 692) patients had comorbidities. The 30-day mortality was 0.73% (n = 15). Associated chest injuries (p = 0.0001), cervical spine injury (p = 0.0001), ASIA-A neurology (p < 0.01) and ankylosing spondylitis (p = 0.01) correlated with higher mortality. Peri-operative morbidity was noted in 571 patients (27.7%) and were significantly associated with age > 60 (p = 0.043), ASIA-A neurology (p < 0.05), chest injuries (p = 0.042), cervical and thoracic spine injury (p < 0.0001). The mean length of stay in hospital was 8.87 days. Cervical spine injury (p < 0.0001), delay in surgery > 48 h (p = 0.011), Diabetes mellitus (p = 0.01), Ankylosing spondylitis (p = 0.009), associated injuries of chest, head, pelvis and face (p < 0.05) were independent risk factors for longer hospital stay., Conclusion: Key predictors of mortality after spinal trauma were cervical spine injury, complete neurological deficit, chest injuries and ankylosing spondylitis, while additionally higher age and thoracic injuries contributed to higher morbidity and prolonged hospitalisation. Notably multi-level injuries, higher age, co-morbidities and timing of surgery did not influence the mortality., (© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.)

Background Context: Prior upper cervical spine injury classification systems have focused on injuries to the craniocervical junction (CCJ), atlas, and dens independently. However, no previous system has classified upper cervical spine injuries using a comprehensive system incorporating all injuries from the occiput to the C2-3 joint., Purpose: To (1) determine the accuracy of experts at correctly classifying upper cervical spine injuries based on the recently proposed AO Spine Upper Cervical Injury Classification System (2) to determine their interobserver reliability and (3) identify the intraobserver reproducibility of the experts., Study Design/setting: International Multi-Center Survey., Patient Sample: A survey of international spine surgeons on 29 unique upper cervical spine injuries., Outcome Measures: Classification accuracy, interobserver reliability, intraobserver reproducibility., Methods: Thirteen international AO Spine Knowledge Forum Trauma members participated in two live webinar-based classifications of 29 upper cervical spine injuries presented in random order, four weeks apart. Percent agreement with the gold-standard and kappa coefficients (ƙ) were calculated to determine the interobserver reliability and intraobserver reproducibility., Results: Raters demonstrated 80.8% and 82.7% accuracy with identification of the injury classification (combined location and type) on the first and second assessment, respectively. Injury classification intraobserver reproducibility was excellent (mean, [range] ƙ=0.82 [0.58-1.00]). Excellent interobserver reliability was found for injury location (ƙ = 0.922 and ƙ=0.912) on both assessments, while injury type was substantial (ƙ=0.689 and 0.699) on both assessments. This correlated to a substantial overall interobserver reliability (ƙ=0.729 and 0.732)., Conclusions: Early phase validation demonstrated classification of upper cervical spine injuries using the AO Spine Upper Cervical Injury Classification System to be accurate, reliable, and reproducible. Greater than 80% accuracy was detected for injury classification. The intraobserver reproducibility was excellent, while the interobserver reliability was substantial., Competing Interests: Declarations of competing interests The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper. This study was organized and funded by AO Spine through the AO Spine Knowledge Forum Trauma, a focused group of international Trauma experts. AO Spine is a clinical division of the AO Foundation, which is an independent medically-guided not-for-profit organization. Study support was provided directly through the AO Spine Research Department., (Copyright © 2022 AO Foundation, AO Spine, AO Network Clinical Research. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: The objective of this paper was to determine the interobserver reliability and intraobserver reproducibility of the AO Spine Upper Cervical Injury Classification System based on surgeon experience (< 5 years, 5-10 years, 10-20 years, and > 20 years) and surgical subspecialty (orthopedic spine surgery, neurosurgery, and "other" surgery)., Methods: A total of 11,601 assessments of upper cervical spine injuries were evaluated based on the AO Spine Upper Cervical Injury Classification System. Reliability and reproducibility scores were obtained twice, with a 3-week time interval. Descriptive statistics were utilized to examine the percentage of accurately classified injuries, and Pearson's chi-square or Fisher's exact test was used to screen for potentially relevant differences between study participants. Kappa coefficients (κ) determined the interobserver reliability and intraobserver reproducibility., Results: The intraobserver reproducibility was substantial for surgeon experience level (< 5 years: 0.74 vs 5-10 years: 0.69 vs 10-20 years: 0.69 vs > 20 years: 0.70) and surgical subspecialty (orthopedic spine: 0.71 vs neurosurgery: 0.69 vs other: 0.68). Furthermore, the interobserver reliability was substantial for all surgical experience groups on assessment 1 (< 5 years: 0.67 vs 5-10 years: 0.62 vs 10-20 years: 0.61 vs > 20 years: 0.62), and only surgeons with > 20 years of experience did not have substantial reliability on assessment 2 (< 5 years: 0.62 vs 5-10 years: 0.61 vs 10-20 years: 0.61 vs > 20 years: 0.59). Orthopedic spine surgeons and neurosurgeons had substantial intraobserver reproducibility on both assessment 1 (0.64 vs 0.63) and assessment 2 (0.62 vs 0.63), while other surgeons had moderate reliability on assessment 1 (0.43) and fair reliability on assessment 2 (0.36)., Conclusions: The international reliability and reproducibility scores for the AO Spine Upper Cervical Injury Classification System demonstrated substantial intraobserver reproducibility and interobserver reliability regardless of surgical experience and spine subspecialty. These results support the global application of this classification system.

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)., Competing Interests: Dr Schroeder has received funds to travel from AO Spine and Medtronic. Dr Vaccaro has consulted or has done independent contracting for DePuy, Medtronic, Stryker Spine, Globus, Stout Medical, Gerson Lehrman Group, Guidepoint Global, Medacorp, Innovative Surgical Design, Orthobullets, Ellipse, and Vertex. He has also served on the scientific advisory board/board of directors/committees for Flagship Surgical, AO Spine, Innovative Surgical Design, and Association of Collaborative Spine Research. Dr Vaccaro has received royalty payments from Medtronic, Stryker Spine, Globus, Aesculap, Thieme, Jaypee, Elsevier, and Taylor Francis/Hodder and Stoughton. He has stock/stock option ownership interests in Replication Medica, Globus, Paradigm Spine, Stout Medical, Progressive Spinal Technologies, Advanced Spinal Intellectual Properties, Spine Medica, Computational Biodynamics, Spinology, In Vivo, Flagship Surgical, Cytonics, Bonovo Orthopaedics, Electrocore, Gamma Spine, Location Based Intelligence, FlowPharma, R.S.I., Rothman Institute and Related Properties, Innovative Surgical Design, and Avaz Surgical. In addition, Dr Vaccaro has also provided expert testimony. He has also served as deputy editor/editor of Clinical Spine Surgery. The remaining authors declare no conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.)

Purpose: To validate the Dutch version of AOSpine PROST (Patient Reported Outcome Spine Trauma)., Methods: Patients were recruited from two level-1 trauma centers from the Netherlands. Next to the AOSpine PROST, patients also filled out SF-36 for concurrent validity. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze the characteristics. Content validity was assessed by evaluating the number of inapplicable or missing questions. Also floor and ceiling effects were analyzed. Internal consistency was assessed by calculating Cronbach's α and item-total correlation coefficients (itcc). Spearman correlation tests were performed within AOSpine PROST items and in correlation with SF-36. Test-retest reliability was analyzed using Intraclass Correlation Coefficients (ICC). Responsiveness was assessed by calculating effect sizes (ES) and standardized response mean (SRM). Factor analysis was performed to explore any dimensions within AOSpine PROST., Results: Out of 179 enrolled patients, 163 (91.1%) were included. Good results were obtained for content validity. No floor or ceiling effects were seen. Internal consistency was excellent (Cronbach's α = 0.96, itcc 0.50-0.86), with also good Spearman correlations (0.25-0.79). Compared to SF-36, the strongest correlation was seen for physical functioning (0.79; p < .001). Also test-retest reliability was excellent (ICC = 0.92). Concerning responsiveness analysis, very good results were seen with ES = 1.81 and SRM = 2.03 (p < 0.001). Factor analysis revealed two possible dimensions (Eigenvalues > 1), explaining 65.4% of variance., Conclusions: Very satisfactory results were obtained for reliability, validity and responsiveness of the Dutch version of AOSpine PROST. Treating surgeons are encouraged to use this novel and validated tool in clinical setting and research to contribute to evidence-based and patient-centered care., (© 2020. The Author(s).)

Purpose: The management of cervical facet dislocation injuries remains controversial. The main purpose of this investigation was to identify whether a surgeon's geographic location or years in practice influences their preferred management of traumatic cervical facet dislocation injuries., Methods: A survey was sent to 272 AO Spine members across all geographic regions and with a variety of practice experience. The survey included clinical case scenarios of cervical facet dislocation injuries and asked responders to select preferences among various diagnostic and management options., Results: A total of 189 complete responses were received. Over 50% of responding surgeons in each region elected to initiate management of cervical facet dislocation injuries with an MRI, with 6 case exceptions. Overall, there was considerable agreement between American and European responders regarding management of these injuries, with only 3 cases exhibiting a significant difference. Additionally, results also exhibited considerable management agreement between those with ≤ 10 and > 10 years of practice experience, with only 2 case exceptions noted., Conclusion: More than half of responders, regardless of geographical location or practice experience, identified MRI as a screening imaging modality when managing cervical facet dislocation injuries, regardless of the status of the spinal cord and prior to any additional intervention. Additionally, a majority of surgeons would elect an anterior approach for the surgical management of these injuries. The study found overall agreement in management preferences of cervical facet dislocation injuries around the globe.

Study Design: Multicenter validation study., Objective: The aim of this study was to translate and adapt the AOSpine PROST (Patient Reported Outcome Spine Trauma) into English, and test its psychometric properties among North-American spine trauma patients., Summary of Background Data: In the absence of an outcome instrument specifically designed and validated for traumatic spinal column injury patients, it is difficult to measure the effect size of various treatment options. The AOSpine Knowledge Forum Trauma initiated a project and developed the AOSpine PROST consisting of 19 items., Methods: Patients were recruited from two level-1 North-American trauma centers. For concurrent validity, next to AOSpine PROST also 36-item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36) was filled out by patients. Patient characteristics were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Floor and ceiling effects as well as the number of inapplicable and missing questions were analyzed for content validity. Cronbach α and item-total correlation coefficients (ITCCs) were calculated for internal consistency. Spearman correlation tests were performed within AOSpine PROST items and in correlation to SF-36. Test-retest reliability was assessed using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs). Factor analysis was performed to explore any dimensions within AOSpine PROST., Results: The AOSpine PROST was translated adapted into English using established guidelines. Of 196 enrolled patients, 162 (82.7%) met the inclusion criteria and provided sufficient data. Content validity showed good results, and no floor and ceiling effects were seen. The internal consistency was excellent (Cronbach α = 0.97; ITCC 0.50-0.90) as well as test-retest reliability (ICC = 0.97). Spearman correlations were good (0.29-0.85). The strongest correlations of AOSpine PROST with SF-36 were seen with the physical components (0.69-0.82; P < 0.001). Factor analysis revealed two possible dimensions (Eigen values >1), explaining 75.7% of variance., Conclusion: The English version of AOSpine PROST showed very good validity and reliability. It is considered as a valuable tool, and has the potential to contribute to the reduction of ongoing controversies in spine trauma care., Level of Evidence: 2.

Purpose: Surgical reduction of uni and bi-facetal dislocations of the cervical spine (AO type C injuries) can be performed by posterior, anterior or combined approaches. Ease of access, low infection rates and less risks of neurological worsening has popularized anterior approach. However, the reduction of locked cervical facets can be intricate through anterior approach. We analyzed the safety, efficacy and outcomes at a minimum 1 year, of a novel anterior reduction technique for consecutively treated cervical facet dislocations., Materials and Methods: Patients with single level traumatic sub-axial cervical dislocation (n = 39) treated by this modified anterior technique were studied. The technique involved standard Smith-Robinson approach, discectomy beyond PLL, use of inter-laminar distracter to distract while Caspar pins were used as "joysticks" (either flexion-extension or lateral rotation moments are provided), to reduce the sub-luxed facets. Among 51 patients with cervical type C injury treated during the study period, 4 patients who had spontaneous reduction and 8 treated by planned global fusion were excluded., Results: 39 patients of mean age 49.9 years were studied. The levels of injury included (C3-4 = 2, C4-5 = 5, C5-6 = 20, C6-7 = 12). 18 were bi-facetal and 21 were uni-facetal dislocation. One facet was fractured in 17 and both in 5 patients. 30% (n = 13) had a concomitant disc prolapse. The neurological status was as follows: 9 ASIA A, 9 ASIA C, 13 ASIA D and 8 ASIA E. All the patients were successfully reduced by this technique and fixed with anterior locking cervical locking plates. No supplemental posterior surgery was performed. 22 patients with incomplete deficit showed recovery. The mean follow-up was 14.3 months and there was no implant failure except one patient who had partial loss of the reduction., Conclusion: Patients with traumatic sub-axial cervical dislocation (AO type C injuries) can be safely and effectively reduced by this technique. Other advantages include minimal blood loss, less risks of infection, shorted fusion zone, good fusion rate and neurological recovery.

Purpose: Although imaging has a major role in evaluation and management of thoracolumbar spinal trauma by spine surgeons, the exact role of computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in addition to radiographs for fracture classification and surgical decision-making is unclear., Methods: Spine surgeons (n = 41) from around the world classified 30 thoracolumbar fractures. The cases were presented in a three-step approach: first plain radiographs, followed by CT and MRI images. Surgeons were asked to classify according to the AOSpine classification system and choose management in each of the three steps., Results: Surgeons correctly classified 43.4 % of fractures with plain radiographs alone; after, additionally, evaluating CT and MRI images, this percentage increased by further 18.2 and 2.2 %, respectively. AO type A fractures were identified in 51.7 % of fractures with radiographs, while the number of type B fractures increased after CT and MRI. The number of type C fractures diagnosed was constant across the three steps. Agreement between radiographs and CT was fair for A-type (k = 0.31), poor for B-type (k = 0.19), but it was excellent between CT and MRI (k > 0.87). CT and MRI had similar sensitivity in identifying fracture subtypes except that MRI had a higher sensitivity (56.5 %) for B2 fractures (p < 0.001). The need for surgical fixation was deemed present in 72 % based on radiographs alone and increased to 81.7 % with CT images (p < 0.0001). The assessment for need of surgery did not change after an MRI (p = 0.77)., Conclusion: For accurate classification, radiographs alone were insufficient except for C-type injuries. CT is mandatory for accurately classifying thoracolumbar fractures. Though MRI did confer a modest gain in sensitivity in B2 injuries, the study does not support the need for routine MRI in patients for classification, assessing instability or need for surgery.

Purpose: To report on the multi-phase process used in developing the AOSpine Patient Reported Outcome Spine Trauma (AOSpine PROST), as well as the results of its application in a pilot study., Methods: The International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) methodology was used as the basis for the development of this tool. Four preparatory studies and a consensus conference were performed, and resulted in the selection of 25 core ICF categories as well as the scale for use. The first draft of the Dutch version of AOSpine PROST was pilot tested among a consecutively selected representative sample of 25 spine trauma patients, using the 'think aloud' and 'probing' methods., Results: Of the 25 core ICF categories, 9 related to body functions, 14 activities and participation, and 2 environmental factors. Those 25 core categories were implemented into the selected response scale, and resulted in a draft version of AOSpine PROST consisting of 19 items. From the pilot study, very satisfactory results were obtained for comprehensibility, relevance, acceptability, feasibility and completeness, as well as high internal consistency (Cronbach's α = 0.926)., Conclusions: Following the ICF methodology and including the results of 4 different preparatory studies and a consensus conference, the AOSpine PROST is developed. Taking the results from the subsequent pilot study into account, a definite version to be further validated will be developed. The AOSpine PROST has the potential to be a helpful tool in clinical practice and research to compare various treatments and improve the quality of health care.

Purpose: Besides a patient reported outcome measure, the AOSpine Knowledge Forum Trauma aims to develop a new concept of a surgeon reported outcome measure (SROM) for spine trauma patients. This study aims to identify parameters that spine surgeons consider relevant to evaluate clinical and functional outcomes of thoracic and lumbar spine trauma patients., Methods: An international cross-sectional web-based survey was conducted among spine surgeons from the five AOSpine International world regions. They were asked to evaluate the relevance of a compilation of 16 clinical and radiological parameters for thoracic and lumbar spine trauma patients, both for the short term (3 months-2 years) and long term (≥2 years), on a five-point scale. The responses were analyzed using descriptive statistics, frequency analysis, and Kruskal-Wallis test., Results: Out of the 279 invited members of AOSpine International and the International Spinal Cord Society, 118 (42.3 %) participated in this study. Of the 16 surveyed parameters, 5 were identified as relevant by at least 70 % of the participants. Neurological status was identified as most relevant. In contrast, five parameters were not deemed relevant for any spine region or time period, except for comorbidity. Only minor differences were observed when analyzing the responses according to each world region, spine surgeons' clinical experience, or professional background., Conclusions: Including a large and representative sample of spine trauma experts, this study identified parameters to evaluate clinical and functional outcomes of thoracic and lumbar spine trauma patients. The results form the basis for the development of a SROM for this specific patient population.

Study Design: International web-based survey., Objective: To identify clinical and radiological parameters that spine surgeons consider most relevant when evaluating clinical and functional outcomes of subaxial cervical spine trauma patients., Summary of Background Data: Although an outcome instrument that reflects the patients' perspective is imperative, there is also a need for a surgeon reported outcome measure to reflect the clinicians' perspective adequately., Methods: A cross-sectional online survey was conducted among a selected number of spine surgeons from all five AOSpine International world regions. They were asked to indicate the relevance of a compilation of 21 parameters, both for the short term (3 mo-2 yr) and long term (≥2 yr), on a five-point scale. The responses were analyzed using descriptive statistics, frequency analysis, and Kruskal-Wallis test., Results: Of the 279 AOSpine International and International Spinal Cord Society members who received the survey, 108 (38.7%) participated in the study. Ten parameters were identified as relevant both for short term and long term by at least 70% of the participants. Neurological status, implant failure within 3 months, and patient satisfaction were most relevant. Bony fusion was the only parameter for the long term, whereas five parameters were identified for the short term. The remaining six parameters were not deemed relevant. Minor differences were observed when analyzing the responses according to each world region, or spine surgeons' degree of experience., Conclusion: The perspective of an international sample of highly experienced spine surgeons was explored on the most relevant parameters to evaluate and predict outcomes of subaxial cervical spine trauma patients. These results form the basis for the development of a disease-specific surgeon reported outcome measure, which will be a helpful tool in research and clinical practice., Level of Evidence: 4.

Background Context: There is no outcome instrument specifically designed and validated for spine trauma patients without complete paralysis, which makes it difficult to compare outcomes of different treatments of the spinal column injury within and between studies., Purpose: The paper aimed to report on the evidence-based consensus process that resulted in the selection of core International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health (ICF) categories, as well as the response scale for use in a universal patient-reported outcome measure for patients with traumatic spinal column injury., Study Design/setting: The study used a formal decision-making and consensus process., Patient Sample: The sample includes patients with a primary diagnosis of traumatic spinal column injury, excluding completely paralyzed and polytrauma patients., Outcome Measures: The wide array of function and health status of patients with traumatic spinal column injury was explored through the identification of all potentially meaningful ICF categories., Methods: A formal decision-making and consensus process integrated evidence from four preparatory studies. Three studies aimed to identify relevant ICF categories from three different perspectives. The research perspective was covered by a systematic literature review identifying outcome measures focusing on the functioning and health of spine trauma patients. The expert perspective was explored through an international web-based survey among spine surgeons from the five AOSpine International world regions. The patient perspective was investigated in an international empirical study. A fourth study investigated various response scales for their potential use in the future universal outcome instrument. This work was supported by AOSpine. AOSpine is a clinical division of the AO Foundation, an independent medically guided non-profit organization. The AOSpine Knowledge Forums are pathology-focused working groups acting on behalf of AOSpine in their domain of scientific expertise., Results: Combining the results of the preparatory studies, the list of ICF categories presented at the consensus conference included 159 different ICF categories. Based on voting and discussion, 11 experts from 6 countries selected a total of 25 ICF categories as core categories for patient-reported outcome measurement in adult traumatic spinal column injury patients (9 body functions, 14 activities and participation, and 2 environmental factors). The experts also agreed to use the Numeric Rating Scale 0-100 as response scale in the future universal outcome instrument., Conclusions: A formal consensus process integrating evidence and expert opinion led to a set of 25 core ICF categories for patient-reported outcome measurement in adult traumatic spinal column injury patients, as well as the response scale for use in the future universal disease-specific outcome instrument. The adopted core ICF categories could also serve as a benchmark for assessing the content validity of existing and future outcome instruments used in this specific patient population., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: The aims of this study were (1) to demonstrate the AOSpine thoracolumbar spine injury classification system can be reliably applied by an international group of surgeons and (2) to delineate those injury types which are difficult for spine surgeons to classify reliably., Methods: A previously described classification system of thoracolumbar injuries which consists of a morphologic classification of the fracture, a grading system for the neurologic status and relevant patient-specific modifiers was applied to 25 cases by 100 spinal surgeons from across the world twice independently, in grading sessions 1 month apart. The results were analyzed for classification reliability using the Kappa coefficient (κ)., Results: The overall Kappa coefficient for all cases was 0.56, which represents moderate reliability. Kappa values describing interobserver agreement were 0.80 for type A injuries, 0.68 for type B injuries and 0.72 for type C injuries, all representing substantial reliability. The lowest level of agreement for specific subtypes was for fracture subtype A4 (Kappa = 0.19). Intraobserver analysis demonstrated overall average Kappa statistic for subtype grading of 0.68 also representing substantial reproducibility., Conclusion: In a worldwide sample of spinal surgeons without previous exposure to the recently described AOSpine Thoracolumbar Spine Injury Classification System, we demonstrated moderate interobserver and substantial intraobserver reliability. These results suggest that most spine surgeons can reliably apply this system to spine trauma patients as or more reliably than previously described systems.

Study Design: A systematic literature review., Objective: The aim of this study was (1) to identify patient-reported and clinician-based outcome measures most frequently used to evaluate the function and health of spine trauma patients, (2) to identify and quantify the concepts of these measures using the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health (ICF) as reference, and (3) to describe their clinimetric properties., Summary of Background Data: There is a real need for a disease-specific outcome instrument to measure the effect size of various treatment options in a variety of traumatic spinal column injuries., Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted in several databases. From the included studies, outcome measures were extracted. The items and underlying concepts of the identified outcome measures were specified and linked to the ICF categories. Finally, as far as available in literature, the clinimetric properties of the obtained measures were analyzed., Results: Out of 5117 screened references, 245 were included, and 17 different frequently used outcome measures were identified. Meaningful concepts of the items and response options of the retrieved outcome measures were linked to a total of 105 different ICF categories, aggregated to 57 first- or second-level categories. The categories were linked to the components activities and participation (n = 31), body functions (n = 17), environmental factors (n = 8), and body structures (n = 1). Overall, there is only limited evidence on the measurement properties, except for some disease-specific questionnaires, such as Oswestry Disability Index, Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire, Neck Disability Index, and Cervical Spine Outcome Questionnaire., Conclusion: The current systematic literature review revealed great diversity in the use and content of outcome measures to evaluate the functioning and health of spine trauma patients, with 17 different outcome measures linked to 57 unique ICF categories. This study creates an evidence base for a consensus meeting during which a core set of ICF categories for outcome measurement in spine trauma will be decided., Level of Evidence: 2.

Study Design: Empirical cross-sectional multicenter study., Objective: To identify the most commonly experienced problems by patients with traumatic spinal column injuries, excluding patients with complete paralysis., Summary of Background Data: There is no disease or condition-specific outcome instrument available that is designed or validated for patients with spine trauma, contributing to the present lack of consensus and ongoing controversies in the optimal treatment and evaluation of many types of spine injuries. Therefore, AOSpine Knowledge Forum Trauma started a project to develop such an instrument using the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) as its basis., Methods: Patients with traumatic spinal column injuries, within 13 months after discharge from hospital were recruited from 9 trauma centers in 7 countries, representing 4 AOSpine International world regions. Health professionals collected the data using the general ICF Checklist. The responses were analyzed using frequency analysis. Possible differences between the world regions and also between the subgroups of potential modifiers were analyzed using descriptive statistics and Fisher exact test., Results: In total, 187 patients were enrolled. A total of 38 (29.7%) ICF categories were identified as relevant for at least 20% of the patients. Categories experienced as a difficulty/impairment were most frequently related to activities and participation (n = 15), followed by body functions (n = 6), and body structures (n = 5). Furthermore, 12 environmental factors were considered to be a facilitator in at least 20% of the patients., Conclusion: Of 128 ICF categories of the general ICF Checklist, 38 ICF categories were identified as relevant. Loss of functioning and limitations in daily living seem to be more relevant for patients with traumatic spinal column injuries rather than pain during this time frame. This study creates an evidence base to define a core set of ICF categories for outcome measurement in adult spine trauma patients., Level of Evidence: 4.

Study Design: International web-based survey., Objective: To identify the most relevant aspects of human function and health status from the perspective of health care professionals involved in the treatment of spinal trauma patients., Summary of Background Data: There is no universally accepted outcome instrument available that is specifically designed or validated for spinal trauma patients, contributing to controversies related to the optimal treatment and evaluation of many types of spinal injuries. Therefore, the AOSpine Knowledge Forum Trauma aims to develop such an instrument using the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health (ICF) as its basis., Methods: Experts from the 5 AOSpine International world regions were asked to give their opinion on the relevance of a compilation of 143 ICF categories for spinal trauma patients on a 3-point scale: "not relevant," "probably relevant," or "definitely relevant." The responses were analyzed using frequency analysis. Possible differences in responses between the 5 world regions were analyzed with the Fisher exact test and descriptive statistics., Results: Of the 895 invited AOSpine International members, 150 (16.8%) participated in this study. A total of 13 (9.1%) ICF categories were identified as definitely relevant by more than 80% of the participants. Most of these categories were related to the ICF component "activities and participation" (n = 8), followed by "body functions" (n = 4), and "body structures" (n = 1). Only some minor regional differences were observed in the pattern of answers., Conclusion: More than 80% of an international group of health care professionals experienced in the clinical care of adult spinal trauma patients indicated 13 of 143 ICF categories as definitely relevant to measure outcomes after spinal trauma. This study creates an evidence base to define a core set of ICF categories for outcome measurement in adult spinal trauma patients.

Translaminar facet screw fixation (TLFS) achieves stabilization of the vertebral motion segment by screws inserted at the base of the spinous process, through the opposite lamina, traversing the facet joint, and ending in the base of the transverse process. It is simple, does not require any specialized equipment, and has the advantages of being a procedure of lesser magnitude, lesser operative time, less cost and few complication rate. Recently there is growing interest in this technique to augment the anterior lumbar fusions to achieve global fusion less invasively. In this review article, we discuss the clinical and biomechanical considerations, surgical technique, indications, contraindications and recent developments of TLFS fixation in lumbar spine fusion.

Purpose: To document a rare complication of a delayed 'chance fracture pattern'-type injury through the proximal end of a pedicle screw construct in the clinical scenario of skeletal fluorosis.Methods: A 72-year-old man with fluorosis presented following a fall which resulted in a T12-L1 fracture. Investigations revealed an unstable three-column injury, so the patient was treated with surgical stabilisation using pedicle screw fixation from T11 to L2. He presented 1 month following surgery with worsening back pain. Investigations revealed a fracture through T11 in a 'chance fracture pattern' along the pedicle screw tracts at the proximal end of the construct. An extension of fixation was performed proximally to T8 and he made an uneventful recovery showing fusion at 20-month follow-up.Results: Complication of delayed pedicle fractures, in a 'chance fracture pattern' at the ends of a pedicle screw fixation constructs are a rarely reported in the literature. The occurrence of such a complication in a hyperostotic spine associated with fluorosis makes this a unique clinical scenario which is previously unreported to the best of our knowledge.Conclusions: This report highlights a very rare complication of chance fracture pattern injury in the clinical scenario of fluorosis. A hyperostotic stiff spine, poor quality of bone and extension of pedicle screw tracts to anterior cortex during primary surgery may have resulted in the occurrence of this rare complication. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: To investigate whether wide variations are seen in the measurement techniques preferred by spine surgeons around the world to assess traumatic fracture kyphosis and vertebral body height loss (VBHL).Methods: An online survey was conducted at two time points among an international community of spine trauma experts from all world regions. The first survey (TL-survey) focused on the thoracic, thoracolumbar and lumbar spine, the second survey (C-survey) on the subaxial cervical spine. Participants were asked to indicate which measurement technique(s) they used for measuring kyphosis and VBHL. Descriptive statistics, frequency analysis and the Fisher exact test were used to analyze the responses.Results: Of the 279 invited experts, 107 (38.4 %) participated in the TL-survey, and 108 (38.7 %) in the C-survey. The Cobb angle was the most frequently used for all spine regions to assess kyphosis (55.6-75.7 %), followed by the wedge angle and adjacent endplates method. Concerning VBHL, the majority of the experts used the vertebral body compression ratio in all spine regions (51.4-54.6 %). The most frequently used combination for kyphosis was the Cobb and wedge angles. Considerable differences were observed between the world regions, while fewer differences were seen between surgeons with different degrees of experience.Conclusions: This study identified worldwide variations in measurement techniques preferred by treating spine surgeons to assess fracture kyphosis and VBHL in spine trauma patients. These results establish the importance of standardizing assessment parameters in spine trauma care, and can be taken into account to further investigate these radiographic parameters. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Multi-level non-contiguous spinal injuries are not uncommon and their incidence varies from 1.6 to 77% depending on the type of imaging modality used. Delayed diagnosis and missed spinal injuries in non-contiguous spine fractures have been frequently described which can result in significant pain, deformity and neurological deficit. The efficacy of whole spine MRI in detecting asymptomatic significant vertebral fractures is not known.Methodology: Consecutive spinal injury patients treated between 2011 and 2013 were retrospectively evaluated based on clinical and radiographic records. Patients' demographics, mode of injury, presence of associated injuries, clinical symptoms and the presence of neurological deficit were studied. Radiographs of the fractured region and whole spine MRI were evaluated for the presence of multi-level injuries.Results: Among 484 patients, 95 (19.62%) patients had multilevel injuries including 86 (17.76%) with non-contiguous injuries. Five common patterns of non-contiguous spinal injuries were observed. Pattern I: cervical and thoracic--29.1%, Pattern II: thoracolumbar and lumbosacral--22.1%, Pattern III: thoracic and thoracolumbar--12.8 %, Pattern IV: cervical and thoracolumbar--9.1% and Pattern V: lumbosacral and associated injuries--9.0 %. The incidence of intra-regional non-contiguous injuries was 17.4%. Whole spine MRI scan detected 24 (28.6%) missed secondary injuries of which 5 were unstable.Conclusion: The incidence of multilevel non-contiguous spine injury using whole spine MRI imaging is 17.76%. Five different patterns of multi-level non-contiguous injuries were found with the most common pattern being the cervical and thoracic level injuries. The incidence of unstable injuries can be as high as 21% of missed secondary injuries. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Pedicle screw fixation is the most preferred method of stabilizing unstable spinal fractures. Pedicle screw placement may be difficult in presence of fractured posterior elements, deformed spine, gross instability and spinal pathology. Challenging spine-fracture fixation is defined as the presence of one or more of the following: 1) obscured topographical landmarks as in ankylosing spondylitis, 2) fractures in occipitocervical or cervicothoracic regions and 3) preexisting altered spinal alignment. We report a series of pedicle screw insertion with guidance of navigation in difficult fixation problems.. Materials and Methods: Fourteen patients [hangman's fracture (n=3), odontoid fracture (n=4), C1C2 fracture (n=1) and spinal fracture with coexistent ankylosing spondylitis (n=6)] underwent posterior stabilization. Intraoperatively after surgical exposure, images were acquired by Iso-C 3D C-arm and transferred to navigation system. Instrumentation was performed with navigational assistance. Postoperatively, placements of pedicle screws were evaluated with radiographs and CT scan. Results: Sixty-seven pedicle screws (cervical, n=33; thoracic, n=6; lumbar, n=26; sacral n=2) and 15 lateral mass screws were inserted with navigation guidance. The average time of image data acquisition by Iso-C 3D C-arm and its transfer to workstation was 4 minutes (range, 2-6 minutes). Postoperative CT scan revealed ideal placement of screws in 63 pedicles (94%), grade 1 cortical breaches (<2 mm) in 3 pedicles (4.5%) and grade 2 cortical breach (2-4 mm) in one pedicle (1.5%). There were no neurovascular complications. Deep infection was encountered in one case, which settled with debridement. Conclusions: Intraoperative Iso-C 3D C-arm based navigation is a useful adjunct while stabilizing challenging spinal trauma, rendering feasibility, accuracy and safety of pedicle screw placement even in difficult situations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

: Background contextAdministration of analgesic medication, before the actual onset of painful stimulus, is more effective than that after the onset of painful stimulus. This is the principle of preemptive analgesia. Although it is often considered superior to other forms of analgesia, its role in postoperative pain relief after lumbosacral spinal surgery has not been fully investigated.: PurposeTo analyze the efficacy of preemptive analgesia with a single caudal epidural injection for patients undergoing surgeries on the lumbosacral spine by the posterior approach.: Study design/settingRandomized, double-blinded and controlled clinical trial.: Patient sampleEighty-two patients who underwent discectomy in the lumbosacral spine by the posterior approach, with or without instrumentation, were randomized to the control group (n=40) and to the study group (n=42).: MethodsPatients in control group received a single caudal epidural injection of 20 ml of normal saline. Patients in study group received a single caudal epidural injection of 20 ml containing bupivacaine and tramadol as the active agents. The time interval between this injection and the surgical incision was never less than 20 minutes in either of the groups. This facilitated enough time for the drug to get fixed to the nerve roots, leading to effective preemptive analgesia.: Outcome measuresPatients were monitored for postoperative pain immediately after surgery when they had completely recovered and regained consciousness from general anesthesia, and subsequently 4, 8, 12 and 24 hours thereafter. Pain was quantified using the visual analog scale (VAS) and the verbal rating scale (VRS). The time at which supplemental analgesic medication was first demanded in the postoperative period by the patient was also noted.: ResultsThe two groups were comparable for age, sex, body weight and the type of surgery they underwent. Because the data did not have a normal Gaussian distribution, the one-tailed Mann-Whitney test, being a nonparametric test, was adopted for statistical analysis. Accordingly, VAS and VRS values at all time intervals were significantly lower (p<.0001) in the study group as compared with the control group. This indicated significantly better pain relief in the study group. There was also a significant delay (p=.0041) in the first demand for supplemental analgesic medication in the postoperative period in the study group. No complication specific to the procedure was noted except for the development of postoperative urinary retention, which was transient and appropriately managed with urinary catheterization.: ConclusionsPreemptive analgesia with a single caudal epidural injection of bupivacaine and tramadol is a safe, simple and effective method for postoperative pain relief. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]