Search

Study Design: Cross-sectional survey. Objectives: Assessment of subaxial cervical facet injuries using the AO Spine Subaxial Cervical Spine Injury Classification System is based on CT scan findings. However, additional radiological evaluations are not directly considered. The aim of this study is to determine situations in which spine surgeons request additional radiological exams after a facet fracture. Methods: A survey was sent to AO Spine members from Latin America. The evaluation considered demographic variables, routine use of the Classification, as well as the timepoint at which surgeons requested a cervical MRI, a vascular study, and/ or dynamic radiographs before treatment of facet fractures. Results: There was 229 participants, mean age 42.9 ± 10.2 years; 93.4% were men. Orthopedic surgeons 57.6% with 10.7 ± 8.7 years of experience in spine surgery. A total of 86% used the Classification in daily practice. An additional study (MRI/vascular study/and dynamic radiographs) was requested in 53.3%/9.6%/43.7% in F1 facet injuries; 76.0%/20.1%/50.2% in F2; 89.1%/65.1%/28.4% in F3; and 94.8%/66.4%/16.6% in F4. An additional study was frequently required: F1 72.5%, F2 86.9%, F3 94.7%, and F4 96.1%. Conclusions: Spine surgeons generally requested additional radiological evaluations in facet injuries, and MRI was the most common. Dynamic radiographs had a higher prevalence for F1/F2 fractures; vascular studies were more common for F3/F4 especially among surgeons with fewer years of experience. Private hospitals had a lower spine trauma cases/year and requested more MRI and more dynamic radiographs in F1/F2. Neurosurgeons had more vascular studies and dynamic radiographs than orthopedic surgeons in all facet fractures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: A classification system was recently developed by the international association AO Spine for assessing subaxial cervical spine fractures. Significant variability exists between users of the facet component, which consists of four morphological types (F1–F4). The primary aims of this study were to assess the diagnostic accuracy and reliability of this new system's facet injury morphological classifications. Methods: A survey consisting of 16 computed tomography (CT) scans of patients with cervical facet fractures was distributed to spine surgeon members of AO Spine Latin America. To provide a gold standard diagnosis for comparison, all 16 injuries had been classified previously by six co-authors and only were included after total consensus was achieved. Demographic and surgical practice characteristics of all respondents were analyzed, and diagnostic accuracy calculated. Inter- and intra-observer agreement rates were calculated across two survey rounds, conducted one month apart. Results: A total of 135 surgeons completed both surveys, among whom the mean age was 41.6 years (range 26–71), 130 (96.3%) were men, and 83 (61.5%) were orthopedic surgeons. The mean time in practice as a spine surgeon was 9.7 years (1–30). The overall diagnostic accuracy of all responses was 65.4%. Inter-observer and intra-observer agreement rates for F1/F2/F3/F4 were 55.4%/47.6%/64.0%/94.7% and 60.0%/49.1%/58.0%/93.0%, respectively. Conclusion: This study evaluates the AO Spine Classification System specifically for facet injuries involving the subaxial cervical spine in a large sample of spine surgeons. There was significant variability in diagnostic accuracy for F1 through F3-type fractures, whereas almost universal agreement was achieved for F4-type injuries. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Thoracic and lumbar spine injuries may require surgical management, particularly AO Spine types B and C injuries. Open reduction and fixation using pedicle screws, with or without fusion and/or decompression, is the gold standard surgical treatment for unstable injuries. Recent advances in instrumentation design have resulted in less-invasive surgeries. However, the literature is sparse about the effectiveness of these procedures for types B and C injuries. The objective is to compare the outcomes of conventional open surgery versus minimally invasive spine surgery (MISS) for the treatment of AO Spine types B and C thoracolumbar injuries., Methods: A systematic review of published literature in PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus was performed to identify studies comparing outcomes achieved with open versus minimally invasive surgery in AO Spine types B and C thoracolumbar injury patients. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines were used., Results: Five retrospective case-control studies and 3 prospective studies met selection criteria. In general, most of the studies demonstrated that minimally invasive spine surgery is feasible for types B and C injuries, and associated with potential advantages like reduced blood loss, postoperative pain, and muscle injury, and shorter hospital stays. However, no differences were detected in major outcomes, like neurological status or disability., Conclusions: Published literature currently suggests that minimally invasive spine surgery is a valid alternative for treating types B and C thoracolumbar injuries. However, further comparative prospective randomized clinical trials are necessary to establish the superiority of one approach over the other., Level of Evidence: 3., (This manuscript is generously published free of charge by ISASS, the International Society for the Advancement of Spine Surgery. Copyright © 2021 ISASS.)