Search

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., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: While telemedicine usage has increased due to the COVID-19 pandemic, there remains little consensus about how spine surgeons perceive virtual care. The purpose of this study was to explore international perspectives of spine providers on the challenges and benefits of telemedicine., Methods: Responses from 485 members of AO Spine were analyzed, covering provider perceptions of the challenges and benefits of telemedicine. All questions were optional, and blank responses were excluded from analysis., Results: The leading challenges reported by surgeons were decreased ability to perform physical examinations (38.6%), possible increased medicolegal exposure (19.3%), and lack of reimbursement parity compared to traditional visits (15.5%). Fewer than 9.0% of respondents experienced technological issues. On average, respondents agreed that telemedicine increases access to care for rural/long-distance patients, provides societal cost savings, and increases patient convenience. Responses were mixed about whether telemedicine leads to greater patient satisfaction. North Americans experienced the most challenges, but also thought telemedicine carried the most benefits, whereas Africans reported the fewest challenges and benefits. Age did not affect responses., Conclusion: Spine surgeons are supportive of the benefits of telemedicine, and only a small minority experienced technical issues. The decreased ability to perform the physical examination was the top challenge and remains a major obstacle to virtual care for spine surgeons around the world, although interestingly, 61.4% of providers did not acknowledge this to be a major challenge. Significant groundwork in optimizing remote physical examination maneuvers and achieving legal and reimbursement clarity is necessary for widespread implementation., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

Purpose: To utilize data from a global spine surgeon survey to elucidate (1) overall confidence in the telemedicine evaluation and (2) determinants of provider confidence., Methods: Members of AO Spine International were sent a survey encompassing participant's experience with, perception of, and comparison of telemedicine to in-person visits. The survey was designed through a Delphi approach, with four rounds of question review by the multi-disciplinary authors. Data were stratified by provider age, experience, telemedicine platform, trust in telemedicine, and specialty., Results: Four hundred and eighty-five surgeons participated in the survey. The global effort included respondents from Africa (19.9%), Asia Pacific (19.7%), Europe (24.3%), North America (9.4%), and South America (26.6%). Providers felt that physical exam-based tasks (e.g., provocative testing, assessing neurologic deficits/myelopathy, etc.) were inferior to in-person exams, while communication-based aspects (e.g., history taking, imaging review, etc.) were equivalent. Participants who performed greater than 50 visits were more likely to believe telemedicine was at least equivalent to in-person visits in the ability to make an accurate diagnosis (OR 2.37, 95% C.I. 1.03-5.43). Compared to in-person encounters, video (versus phone only) visits were associated with increased confidence in the ability of telemedicine to formulate and communicate a treatment plan (OR 3.88, 95% C.I. 1.71-8.84)., Conclusion: Spine surgeons are confident in the ability of telemedicine to communicate with patients, but are concerned about its capacity to accurately make physical exam-based diagnoses. Future research should concentrate on standardizing the remote examination and the development of appropriate use criteria in order to increase provider confidence in telemedicine technology., (© 2020. The Author(s).)

Purpose: To utilize a global survey to elucidate spine surgeons' perspectives towards research and resident education within telemedicine., Methods: A cross-sectional, anonymous email survey was circulated to the members of AO Spine, an international organization consisting of spine surgeons from around the world. Questions were selected and revised using a Delphi approach. A major portion of the final survey queried participants on experiences with telemedicine in training, the utility of telemedicine for research, and the efficacy of telemedicine as a teaching tool. Responses were compared by region., Results: A total of 485 surgeons completed the survey between May 15, 2020 and May 31, 2020. Though most work regularly with trainees (83.3%) and 81.8% agreed that telemedicine should be incorporated into clinical education, 61.7% of respondents stated that trainees are not present during telemedicine visits. With regards to the types of clinical education that telemedicine could provide, only 33.9% of respondents agreed that interpretation of physical exam maneuvers can be taught (mean score = - 0.28, SD =  ± 1.13). The most frequent research tasks performed over telehealth were follow-up of imaging (28.7%) and study group meetings (26.6%). Of all survey responses provided by members, there were no regional differences (p > 0.05 for all comparisons)., Conclusions: Our study of spine surgeons worldwide noted high agreement among specialists for the implantation of telemedicine in trainee curricula, underscoring the global acceptance of this medium for patient management going forward. A greater emphasis towards trainee participation as well as establishing best practices in telemedicine are essential to equip future spine specialists with the necessary skills for navigating this emerging platform., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

Study Design: Survey Objective: In March of 2020, an original study by Louie et al investigated the impact of COVID-19 on 902 spine surgeons internationally. Since then, due to varying government responses and public health initiatives to the pandemic, individual countries and regions of the world have been affected differently. Therefore, this follow-up study aimed to assess how the COVID-19 impact on spine surgeons has changed 1 year later. Methods: A repeat, multi-dimensional, 90-item survey written in English was distributed to spine surgeons worldwide via email to the AO Spine membership who agreed to receive surveys. Questions were categorized into the following domains: demographics, COVID-19 observations, preparedness, personal impact, patient care, and future perceptions. Results: Basic respondent demographics, such as gender, age, home demographics, medical comorbidities, practice type, and years since training completion, were similar to those of the original 2020 survey. Significant differences between groups included reasons for COVID testing, opinions of media coverage, hospital unemployment, likelihood to be performing elective surgery, percentage of cases cancelled, percentage of personal income, sick leave, personal time allocation, stress coping mechanisms, and the belief that future guidelines were needed (P<.05). Conclusion: Compared to baseline results collected at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, significant differences in various domains related to COVID-19 perceptions, hospital preparedness, practice impact, personal impact, and future perceptions have developed. Follow-up assessment of spine surgeons has further indicated that telemedicine and virtual education are mainstays. Such findings may help to inform and manage expectations and responses to any future outbreaks. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Resource allocation to research activities is challenging and there is limited evidence to justify decisions. Members of AO Spine were surveyed to understand the research practices and needs of spine surgeons worldwide. Methods: An 84-item survey was distributed to the AO Spine community in September of 2020. Respondent demographics and insights regarding research registries, training and education, mentorship, grants and financial support, and future directions were collected. Responses were anonymous and compared among regions. Results: A total of 333 spine surgeons representing all geographic regions responded; 52.3% were affiliated with an academic/university hospital, 91.0% conducted clinical research, and 60.9% had 5+ years of research experience. There was heterogeneity among research practices and needs across regions. North American respondents had more research experience (P =.023), began conducting research early on (P <.001), had an undergraduate science degree (P <.001), and were more likely to have access to a research coordinator or support staff (P =.042) compared to other regions. While all regions expressed having the same challenges in conducting research, Latin America, and Middle East/Northern Africa respondents were less encouraged to do research (P <.001). Despite regional differences, there was global support for research registries and research training and education. Conclusion: To advance spine care worldwide, spine societies should establish guidelines, conduct studies on pain management, and support predictive analytic modeling. Tailoring local/regional programs according to regional needs is advised. These results can assist spine societies in developing long-term research strategies and provide justified rationale to governments and funding agencies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Recently, a scoring system to grade sacroiliac joint (SIJ) degeneration using computed tomography (CT) scans was described. No independent evaluation has determined the inter- and intra-observer agreement using this scheme. Purpose: To perform an independent inter- and intra-observer agreement assessment using the Eno classification and determining gas in the SIJ. Material and Methods: We studied 64 patients aged ≥60 years who were evaluated with abdominal and pelvic computed tomography scans. Six physicians (three orthopaedic spine surgeons and three musculoskeletal radiologists) assessed axial images to grade SIJ degeneration into grade 0 (normal), grade 1 (mild degeneration), grade 2 (significant degeneration), and grade 3 (ankylosis). We also evaluated the agreement assessing the presence of gas in the SIJ. After a four-week interval, all cases were presented in a random sequence for repeat assessment. We determined the agreement using the kappa (κ) or weighted kappa coefficient (wκ). Results: The inter-observer agreement was moderate (wκ = 0.50 [0.44–0.56]), without differences among surgeons (wκ = 0.53 [0.45–0.61]) and radiologists (wκ = 0.49 [0.42–0.57]). The agreement evaluating the presence of gas was also moderate (κ = 0.45 [0.35–0.54]), but radiologists obtained better agreement (κ = 0.61 [0.48–0.72]) than surgeons (κ = 0.29 [0.18–0.39]). The intra-observer agreement using the classification was substantial (wκ = 0.79 [0.76–0.82]), without differences comparing surgeons (wκ = 0.75 [0.70–0.80]) and radiologists (wκ = 0.83 [0.79–0.87]). The intra-rater agreement evaluating gas was substantial (κ = 0.77 [0.72–0.82]), without differences between surgeons (κ = 0.71 [0.63–0.78]) and radiologists (κ = 0.84 [0.78–0.90]). Conclusion: Given the only moderate agreement obtained using the Eno classification, it does not seem adequate to be used in clinical practice or in research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To determine if personal health of spine surgeons worldwide influences perceptions, healthcare delivery, and decision-making during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Methods: A cross-sectional study was performed by distributing a multidimensional survey to spine surgeons worldwide. Questions addressed demographics, impacts and perceptions of COVID-19, and the presence of surgeon comorbidities, which included cancer, cardiac disease, diabetes, obesity, hypertension, respiratory illness, renal disease, and current tobacco use. Multivariate analysis was performed to identify specific comorbidities that influenced various impact measures. Results: Across 7 global regions, 36.8% out of 902 respondents reported a comorbidity, of which hypertension (21.9%) and obesity (15.6%) were the most common. Multivariate analysis noted tobacco users were more likely to continue performing elective surgery during the pandemic (odds ratio [OR], 2.62; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.46–4.72; p = 0.001) and were less likely to utilize telecommunication (OR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.31–0.86; p = 0.011), whereas those with hypertension were less likely to warn their patients should the surgeon become infected with COVID-19 (OR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.37–0.91; p = 0.017). Clinicians with multiple comorbidities were more likely to cite personal health as a current stressor (OR, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.07–1.63; p = 0.009) and perceived their hospital’s management unfavorably (OR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.60–0.91; p = 0.005). Conclusion: This is the first study to have mapped global variations of personal health of spine surgeons, key in the development for future wellness and patient management initiatives. This study underscored that spine surgeons worldwide are not immune to comorbidities, and their personal health influences various perceptions, healthcare delivery, and decision-making during the COVID-19 pandemic. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Unfortunately, the 13th author name has been incorrectly published in the original publication. The complete correct name is given below. [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]