Time to surgery for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: How long does it take? A multicenter study

Study design: Retrospective review of multicentric data. Objectives: To estimate the time from initial visit to surgery in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) patients and the main reasons for the time to surgery in a multicenter study. Methods: This retrospective study evaluated 509 patients with AIS from 16 hospitals across six Latin American countries. From each hospital's deformity registry, the following patient data were extracted: demographics, main curve Cobb angle, Lenke Classification at the initial visit and time of surgery, time from indication-for-surgery to surgery, curve progression, Risser skeletal-maturity score and causes for surgical cancelation or delay. Surgeons were asked if they needed to change the original surgical plan due to curve progression. Data also were collected on each hospital's waiting list numbers and mean delay to AIS surgery. Results: 66.8% of the patients waited over six months and 33.9% over a year. Waiting time was not impacted by the patient's age when surgery first became indicated (p = 0.22) but waiting time did differ between countries (p < 0.001) and hospitals (p < 0.001). Longer time to surgery was significantly associated with increasing magnitude of the Cobb angle through the second year of waiting (p < 0.001). Reported causes for delay were hospital-related (48.4%), economic (47.3%), and logistic (4.2%). Oddly, waiting time for surgery did not correlate with the hospital's reported waiting-list lengths (p = 0.57) Conclusion: Prolonged waits for AIS surgery are common in Latin America, with rare exceptions. At most centers, patients wait over six months, most commonly for economic and hospital-related reasons. Whether this directly impacts surgical outcomes in Latin America still must be studied

Variations in management of A3 and A4 cervical spine fractures as designated by the AO Spine Subaxial Injury Classification System

© 2022 The authors.OBJECTIVE Optimal management of A3 and A4 cervical spine fractures, as defined by the AO Spine Subaxial Injury Classification System, remains controversial. The objectives of this study were to determine whether significant management variations exist with respect to 1) fracture location across the upper, middle, and lower subaxial cervical spine and 2) geographic region, experience, or specialty. METHODS A survey was internationally distributed to 272 AO Spine members across six geographic regions (North America, South America, Europe, Africa, Asia, and the Middle East). Participants’ management of A3 and A4 subaxial cervical fractures across cervical regions was assessed in four clinical scenarios. Key characteristics considered in the vignettes included degree of neurological deficit, pain severity, cervical spine stability, presence of comorbidities, and fitness for surgery. Respondents were also directly asked about their preferences for operative management and misalignment acceptance across the subaxial cervical spine. RESULTS In total, 155 (57.0%) participants completed the survey. Pooled analysis demonstrated that surgeons were more likely to offer operative intervention for both A3 (p &lt; 0.001) and A4 (p &lt; 0.001) fractures located at the cervicothoracic junction compared with fractures at the upper or middle subaxial cervical regions. There were no significant variations in management for junctional incomplete (p = 0.116) or complete (p = 0.342) burst fractures between geographic regions. Surgeons with more than 10 years of experience were more likely to operatively manage A3 (p &lt; 0.001) and A4 (p &lt; 0.001) fractures than their younger counterparts. Neurosurgeons were more likely to offer surgical stabilization of A3 (p &lt; 0.001) and A4 (p &lt; 0.001) fractures than their orthopedic colleagues. Clinicians from both specialties agreed regarding their preference for fixation of lower junctional A3 (p = 0.866) and A4 (p = 0.368) fractures. Overall, surgical fixation was recommended more often for A4 than A3 fractures in all four scenarios (p &lt; 0.001). CONCLUSIONS The subaxial cervical spine should not be considered a single unified entity. Both A3 and A4 fracture subtypes were more likely to be surgically managed at the cervicothoracic junction than the upper or middle subaxial cervical regions. The authors also determined that treatment strategies for A3 and A4 subaxial cervical spine fractures varied significantly, with the latter demonstrating a greater likelihood of operative management. These findings should be reflected in future subaxial cervical spine trauma algorithms.N