Development of the AOSpine Patient Reported Outcome Spine Trauma (AOSpine PROST): A universal disease-specific outcome instrument for individuals with traumatic spinal column injury

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. 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. 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 alpha = 0.926). 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

Towards the development of an outcome instrument for spinal trauma : An international survey of spinal surgeons

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

Toward Developing a Specific Outcome Instrument for Spine Trauma : An Empirical Cross-sectional Multicenter ICF-Based Study by AOSpine Knowledge Forum Trauma

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

Toward the Development of a Universal Outcome Instrument for Spine Trauma:A Systematic Review and Content Comparison of Outcome Measures Used in Spine Trauma Research Using the ICF as Reference

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:

Missed low-grade infection in suspected aseptic loosening has no consequences for the survival of total hip arthroplasty

Background and purpose - Aseptic loosening and infection are 2 of the most common causes of revision of hip implants. Antibiotic prophylaxis reduces not only the rate of revision due to infection but also the rate of revision due to aseptic loosening. This suggests under-diagnosis of infections in patients with presumed aseptic loosening and indicates that current diagnostic tools are suboptimal. In a previous multicenter study on 176 patients undergoing revision of a total hip arthroplasty due to presumed aseptic loosening, optimized diagnostics revealed that 4-13% of the patients had a low-grade infection. These infections were not treated as such, and in the current follow-up study the effect on mid- to long-term implant survival was investigated. Patients and methods - Patients were sent a 2-part questionnaire. Part A requested information about possible re-revisions of their total hip arthroplasty. Part B consisted of 3 patient-related outcome measure questionnaires (EQ5D, Oxford hip score, and visual analog scale for pain). Additional information was retrieved from the medical records. The group of patients found to have a low-grade infection was compared to those with aseptic loosening. Results - 173 of 176 patients from the original study were included. In the follow-up time between the revision surgery and the current study (mean 7.5 years), 31 patients had died. No statistically significant difference in the number of re-revisions was found between the infection group (2 out of 21) and the aseptic loosening group (13 out of 152); nor was there any significant difference in the time to re-revision. Quality of life, function, and pain were similar between the groups, but only 99 (57%) of the patients returned part B. Interpretation - Under-diagnosis of low-grade infection in conjunction with presumed aseptic revision of total hip arthroplasty may not affect implant survival

The selection of core International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health (ICF) categories for patient-reported outcome measurement in spine trauma patients-results of an international consensus process

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. (C) 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved

Radiologic Assessment of Interbody Fusion: A Systematic Review on the Use, Reliability, and Accuracy of Current Fusion Criteria

Background: Lumbar interbody fusion (IF) is a common procedure to fuse the anterior spine. However, a lack of consensus on image-based fusion assessment limits the validity and comparison of IF studies. This systematic review aims to (1) report on IF assessment strategies and definitions and (2) summarize available literature on the diagnostic reliability and accuracy of these assessments. Methods: Two searches were performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines. Search 1 identified studies on adult lumbar IF that provided a detailed description of image-based fusion assessment. Search 2 analyzed studies on the reliability of specific fusion criteria/classifications and the accuracy assessed with surgical exploration. Results: A total of 442 studies were included for search 1 and 8 studies for search 2. Fusion assessment throughout the literature was highly variable. Eighteen definitions and more than 250 unique fusion assessment methods were identified. The criteria that showed most consistent use were continuity of bony bridging, radiolucency around the cage, and angular motion <5°. However, reliability and accuracy studies were scarce. Conclusion: This review highlights the challenges in reaching consensus on IF assessment. The variability in IF assessment is very high, which limits the translatability of studies. Accuracy studies are needed to guide innovations of assessment. Future IF assessment strategies should focus on the standardization of computed tomography-based continuity of bony bridging. Knowledge from preclinical and imaging studies can add valuable information to this ongoing discussion.Biomaterials & Tissue Biomechanic