Search

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.

Study Design: A single-center validation study. Objective: To translate and cross-culturally adapt the AO Spine PROST (Patient Reported Outcome Spine Trauma) into German, and to test its psychometric properties among German-speaking Swiss spine trauma patients. Methods: Patients were recruited from a level-1 Swiss trauma center. Next to the AO Spine PROST, the EQ-5D-3L questionnaire was used for concurrent validity. Questionnaires were filled out at two-time points for test-retest reliability. Patient characteristics were analyzed using descriptive statistics. For content validity, floor, and ceiling effects, as well as any irrelevant and missing questions were analyzed. Construct validity of the AO Spine PROST questionnaire to the EQ-5D-3L was tested using Spearman correlation tests. Results: The AOSpine PROST was translated and adapted into German using established guidelines. We included 179 patients. The floor effect for all items was well within the optimal range (below 15%), while the ceiling effect of seven items was within the optimal range. None of the items displayed a problematic floor or ceiling effect. The overall test-retest reliability of the total PROST score was excellent, with an ICC of.83 (95% CI.69-.91). The Spearman correlation coefficient between the total PROST summary score and EQ-5D-3 L was ρ =.63. Conclusions: The German version of the AO Spine PROST questionnaire demonstrated very good validity and reliability results. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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 (rs = 0.41–0.64). Comparing the CROST with PROST showed no specific association, nor any Spearman correlations (rs = −0.33–0.07). Conclusions: The AO Spine CROST showed moderate validity in a true clinical setting including patients from the daily clinical practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: To report on the development of AOSpine CROST (Clinician Reported Outcome Spine Trauma) and results of an initial reliability study. Methods: The AOSpine CROST was developed using an iterative approach of multiple cycles of development, review, and revision including an expert clinician panel. Subsequently, a reliability study was performed among an expert panel who were provided with 20 spine trauma cases, administered twice with 4-week interval. The results of the developmental process were analyzed using descriptive statistics, the reliability per parameter using Kappa statistics, inter-rater rater agreement using intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), and internal consistency using Cronbach's α. Results: The AOSpine CROST was developed and consisted of 10 parameters, 2 of which are only applicable for surgically treated patents ('Wound healing' and 'Implants'). A dichotomous scoring system ('yes' or 'no' response) was incorporated to express expected problems for the short term and long term. In the reliability study, 16 (84.2%) participated in the first round and 14 (73.7%) in the second. Intra-rater reliability was fair to good for both time points (κ = 0.40–0.80 and κ = 0.31–0.67). Results of inter-rater reliability were lower (κ = 0.18–0.60 and κ = 0.16–0.46). Inter-rater agreement for total scores showed moderate results (ICC = 0.52–0.60), and the internal consistency was acceptable (α = 0.76–0.82). Conclusions: The AOSpine CROST, an outcome tool for the surgeons, was developed using an iterative process. An initial reliability analysis showed fair to moderate results and acceptable internal consistency. Further clinical validation studies will be performed to further validate the tool. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Study Design: International validation study.Objective: To investigate the influence of the spine surgeons' level of experience on the intraobserver reliability of the novel AOSpine Thoracolumbar Spine Injury Classification system, and the appropriate classification according to this system.Summary Of Background Data: Wide variability has been demonstrated for intraobserver reliability of the AOSpine classification system. The spine surgeons' level of experience may play a crucial role in the appropriate classification of thoracolumbar fractures, and the degree of reproducibility of the same observer on separate occasions. However, this has not been previously investigated.Methods: After a training on the classification system, high quality CT images together with clinical data from 25 patients with thoracolumbar fractures were independently assessed by 100 spine surgeons from across the world on 2 different occasions, 1 month apart from each other. The spine surgeons were allocated to a subgroup, according to their years of experience. Intraobserver reliability was calculated for each individual surgeon and for each subgroup, using the Kappa statistics (κ). Descriptive statistics was used to describe any differences between the subgroups. Analysis of any misclassifications was performed by calculating sensitivity and specificity estimates.Results: Almost all surgeons demonstrated at least moderate intraobserver reliability. All surgeon subgroups demonstrated substantial reliability (κ = 0.67-0.69) for fracture subtype grading, and almost all subgroups demonstrated excellent reliability (κ = 0.79-0.83) for fracture morphology type regardless of subtype identified. In general, the fractures were most frequently misclassified by the most experienced surgeons. No major differences were observed among the subgroups when comparing the sensitivity and specificity rates.Conclusion: This international study demonstrated that the spine surgeons' level of experience does not substantially influence the classification and intraobserver reliability of the recently described AOSpine Thoracolumbar Spine Injury Classification System.Level Of Evidence: 4. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]