An Assessment of the World's Contribution to Spine Trauma Care: A Bibliometric Analysis of Classifications and Surgical Management; An AO Spine Knowledge Forum Trauma Initiative.

STUDY DESIGN Bibliometric analysis. OBJECTIVES An analysis of the literature related to the assessment and management of spinal trauma was undertaken to allow the identification of top contributors, collaborations and research trends. METHODS A search to identify original articles published in English between 2011 and 2020 was done using specific keywords in the Web of Science database. After screening, the top 300 most cited articles were analyzed using Biblioshiny R software. RESULTS The highest number of contributions were from the Thomas Jefferson University, USA, University of Toronto and University of British Columbia, Canada. The top 3 most prolific authors were Vaccaro AR, Arabi B, and Oner FC. The USA and Canada were among the top contributing countries; Switzerland and Brazil had most multiple country co-authored articles. The most relevant journals were the European Spine Journal, Spine and Spine Journal. Three of the 5 most cited articles were about classification systems of fractures. The keyword analysis included clusters for different spinal regions, spinal cord injury, classification agreement and reliability studies, imaging related studies, surgical techniques and outcomes. CONCLUSIONS The study identified the most impactful authors and affiliations, and determined the journals where most impactful research is published in the field. Study also compared the productivity and collaborations across countries. The study highlighted the impact of development of new classification systems, and identified research trends including instrumentation, fixation and decompression techniques, epidemiology and recovery after spinal trauma

Effect of surgical experience and spine subspecialty on the reliability of the AO Spine Upper Cervical Injury Classification System.

OBJECTIVE The objective of this paper was to determine the interobserver reliability and intraobserver reproducibility of the AO Spine Upper Cervical Injury Classification System based on surgeon experience ( 20 years) and surgical subspecialty (orthopedic spine surgery, neurosurgery, and "other" surgery). METHODS A total of 11,601 assessments of upper cervical spine injuries were evaluated based on the AO Spine Upper Cervical Injury Classification System. Reliability and reproducibility scores were obtained twice, with a 3-week time interval. Descriptive statistics were utilized to examine the percentage of accurately classified injuries, and Pearson's chi-square or Fisher's exact test was used to screen for potentially relevant differences between study participants. Kappa coefficients (κ) determined the interobserver reliability and intraobserver reproducibility. RESULTS The intraobserver reproducibility was substantial for surgeon experience level ( 20 years: 0.70) and surgical subspecialty (orthopedic spine: 0.71 vs neurosurgery: 0.69 vs other: 0.68). Furthermore, the interobserver reliability was substantial for all surgical experience groups on assessment 1 ( 20 years: 0.62), and only surgeons with > 20 years of experience did not have substantial reliability on assessment 2 ( 20 years: 0.59). Orthopedic spine surgeons and neurosurgeons had substantial intraobserver reproducibility on both assessment 1 (0.64 vs 0.63) and assessment 2 (0.62 vs 0.63), while other surgeons had moderate reliability on assessment 1 (0.43) and fair reliability on assessment 2 (0.36). CONCLUSIONS The international reliability and reproducibility scores for the AO Spine Upper Cervical Injury Classification System demonstrated substantial intraobserver reproducibility and interobserver reliability regardless of surgical experience and spine subspecialty. These results support the global application of this classification system

The AO spine upper cervical injury classification system: Do work setting or trauma center affiliation affect classification accuracy or reliability?

PURPOSE To assess the accuracy and reliability of the AO Spine Upper Cervical Injury Classification System based on a surgeons' work setting and trauma center affiliation. METHODS A total of 275 AO Spine members participated in a validation of 25 upper cervical spine injuries, which were evaluated by computed tomography (CT) scans. Each participant was grouped based on their work setting (academic, hospital-employed, or private practice) and their trauma center affiliation (Level I, Level II or III, and Level IV or no trauma center). The classification accuracy was calculated as percent of correct classifications, while interobserver reliability, and intraobserver reproducibility were evaluated based on Fleiss' Kappa coefficient. RESULTS The overall classification accuracy for surgeons affiliated with a level I trauma center was significantly greater than participants affiliated with a level II/III center or a level IV/no trauma center on assessment one (p1<0.0001) and two (p2 = 0.0003). On both assessments, surgeons affiliated with a level I or a level II/III trauma center were significantly more accurate at identifying IIIB injury types (p1 = 0.0007; p2 = 0.0064). Academic surgeons and hospital employed surgeons were significantly more likely to correctly classify type IIIB injuries on assessment one (p1 = 0.0146) and two (p2 = 0.0015). When evaluating classification reliability, the largest differences between work settings and trauma center affiliations was identified in type IIIB injuries. CONCLUSION Type B injuries are the most difficult injury type to correctly classify. They are classified with greater reliability and classification accuracy when evaluated by academic surgeons, hospital-employed surgeons, and surgeons associated with higher-level trauma centers (I or II/III)

Global Validation of the AO Spine Upper Cervical Injury Classification.

STUDY DESIGN Global Cross Sectional Survey. OBJECTIVE To determine the classification accuracy, interobserver reliability, and intraobserver reproducibility of the AO Spine Upper Cervical Injury Classification System based on an international group of AO Spine members. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA Previous upper cervical spine injury classifications have primarily been descriptive without incorporating a hierarchical injury progression within the classification system. Further, upper cervical spine injury classifications have focused on distinct anatomical segments within the upper cervical spine. The AO Spine Upper Cervical Injury Classification System incorporates all injuries of the upper cervical spine into a single classification system focused on a hierarchical progression from isolated bony injuries (type A) to fracture dislocations (type C). METHODS A total of 275 AO Spine members participated in a validation aimed at classifying 25 upper cervical spine injuries via computed tomography (CT) scans according to the AO Spine Upper Cervical Classification System. The validation occurred on two separate occasions, three weeks apart. Descriptive statistics for percent agreement with the gold-standard were calculated and Pearson's chi square test evaluated significance between validation groups. Kappa coefficients (ƙ) determined the interobserver reliability and intraobserver reproducibility. RESULTS The accuracy of AO Spine members to appropriately classify upper cervical spine injuries was 79.7% on assessment 1 (AS1) and 78.7% on assessment 2 (AS2). The overall intraobserver reproducibility was substantial (ƙ=0.70), while the overall interobserver reliability for AS1 and AS2 was substantial (ƙ=0.63 and ƙ=0.61, respectively). Injury location had higher interobserver reliability (AS1: ƙ = 0.85 and AS2: ƙ=0.83) than the injury type (AS1: ƙ=0.59 and AS2: 0.57) on both assessments. CONCLUSION The global validation of the AO Spine Upper Cervical Injury Classification System demonstrated substantial interobserver agreement and intraobserver reproducibility. These results support the universal applicability of the AO Spine Upper Cervical Injury Classification System

Global Validation of the AO Spine Upper Cervical Injury Classification: Geographic Region Affects Reliability and Reproducibility.

STUDY DESIGN Global Survey. OBJECTIVE To determine the accuracy, interobserver reliability, and intraobserver reproducibility of the AO Spine Upper Cervical Injury Classification System based on surgeons' AO Spine region of practice (Africa, Asia, Central/South America, Europe, Middle East, and North America). METHODS A total of 275 AO Spine members assessed 25 upper cervical spine injuries and classified them according to the AO Spine Upper Cervical Injury Classification System. Reliability, reproducibility, and accuracy scores were obtained over two assessments administered at three-week intervals. Kappa coefficients (ƙ) determined the interobserver reliability and intraobserver reproducibility. RESULTS On both assessments, participants from Europe and North America had the highest classification accuracy, while participants from Africa and Central/South America had the lowest accuracy (P < .0001). Participants from Africa (assessment 1 (AS1):ƙ = .487; AS2:0.491), Central/South America (AS1:ƙ = .513; AS2:0.511), and the Middle East (AS1:0.591; AS2: .599) achieved moderate reliability, while participants from North America (AS1:ƙ = .673; AS2:0.648) and Europe (AS1:ƙ = .682; AS2:0.681) achieved substantial reliability. Asian participants obtained substantial reliability on AS1 (ƙ = .632), but moderate reliability on AS2 (ƙ = .566). Although there was a large effect size, the low number of participants in certain regions did not provide adequate certainty that AO regions affected the likelihood of participants having excellent reproducibility (P = .342). CONCLUSIONS The AO Spine Upper Cervical Injury Classification System can be applied with high accuracy, interobserver reliability, and intraobserver reproducibility. However, lower classification accuracy and reliability were found in regions of Africa and Central/South America, especially for severe atlas injuries (IIB and IIC) and atypical hangman's type fractures (IIIB injuries)

AO Spine Upper Cervical Injury Classification System: A Description and Reliability Study.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT Prior upper cervical spine injury classification systems have focused on injuries to the craniocervical junction (CCJ), atlas, and dens independently. However, no previous system has classified upper cervical spine injuries using a comprehensive system incorporating all injuries from the occiput to the C2-3 joint. PURPOSE To (1) determine the accuracy of experts at correctly classifying upper cervical spine injuries based on the recently proposed AO Spine Upper Cervical Injury Classification System (2) to determine their interobserver reliability and (3) identify the intraobserver reproducibility of the experts. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING International Multi-Center Survey PATIENT SAMPLE: A survey of international spine surgeons on 29 unique upper cervical spine injuries OUTCOME MEASURES: Classification accuracy, interobserver reliability, intraobserver reproducibility METHODS: Thirteen international AO Spine Knowledge Forum Trauma members participated in two live webinar-based classifications of 29 upper cervical spine injuries presented in random order, four weeks apart. Percent agreement with the gold-standard and kappa coefficients (ƙ) were calculated to determine the interobserver reliability and intraobserver reproducibility. RESULTS Raters demonstrated 80.8% and 82.7% accuracy with identification of the injury classification (combined location and type) on the first and second assessment, respectively. Injury classification intraobserver reproducibility was excellent (mean, [range] ƙ = 0.82 [0.58-1.00]). Excellent interobserver reliability was found for injury location (ƙ = 0.922 and ƙ= 0.912) on both assessments, while injury type was substantial (ƙ=0.689 and 0.699) on both assessments. This correlated to a substantial overall interobserver reliability (ƙ = 0.729 and 0.732). CONCLUSION Early phase validation demonstrated classification of upper cervical spine injuries using the AO Spine Upper Cervical Injury Classification System to be accurate, reliable, and reproducible. Greater than 80% accuracy was detected for injury classification. The intraobserver reproducibility was excellent, while the interobserver reliability was substantial

Validation of the AO Spine CROST (Clinician Reported Outcome Spine Trauma) in the clinical setting

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