Regional and experiential differences in surgeon preference for the treatment of cervical facet injuries: a case study survey with the AO Spine Cervical Classification Validation Group

Purpose: The management of cervical facet dislocation injuries remains controversial. The main purpose of this investigation was to identify whether a surgeon’s geographic location or years in practice influences their preferred management of traumatic cervical facet dislocation injuries. Methods: A survey was sent to 272 AO Spine members across all geographic regions and with a variety of practice experience. The survey included clinical case scenarios of cervical facet dislocation injuries and asked responders to select preferences among various diagnostic and management options. Results: A total of 189 complete responses were received. Over 50% of responding surgeons in each region elected to initiate management of cervical facet dislocation injuries with an MRI, with 6 case exceptions. Overall, there was considerable agreement between American and European responders regarding management of these injuries, with only 3 cases exhibiting a significant difference. Additionally, results also exhibited considerable management agreement between those with ≤ 10 and > 10 years of practice experience, with only 2 case exceptions noted. Conclusion: More than half of responders, regardless of geographical location or practice experience, identified MRI as a screening imaging modality when managing cervical facet dislocation injuries, regardless of the status of the spinal cord and prior to any additional intervention. Additionally, a majority of surgeons would elect an anterior approach for the surgical management of these injuries. The study found overall agreement in management preferences of cervical facet dislocation injuries around the globe

Mycorrhization protects Betula pubescens Ehr. from metal-induced oxidative stress increasing its tolerance to grow in an industrial polluted soil

In recent years, the use of woody plants in phytoremediation has gained popularity due to their high biomass production and their association with mycorrhizal fungi, which can improve their survival and development rates under stress conditions. In this study, mycorrhized and non-mycorrhized white birch plants (Betula pubescens Ehr.) were grown in control and a metal-polluted industrial soil. After 60 days of culture, plant growth and metal accumulation, the content of photosynthetic pigments and oxidative stress markers, as well as the enzymatic activities and gene expressions of antioxidant enzymes were measured. According to our results, mycorrhized birch plants grown in control soil showed an increased activity and gene expression of catalase and ascorbate peroxidase, along with hydrogen peroxide overproduction, which could support the importance of the reactive oxygen species as signaling molecules in the regulation of plant-fungus interactions. Additionally, in polluted soil mycorrhized plants had higher biomass but lower metal accumulation, probably because the symbiotic fungus acted as a barrier to the entrance of metals into the host plants. This behavior led to mitigation in the oxidative challenge, reduced hydrogen peroxide content and diminished activities of the antioxidant enzymes in comparison to non-mycorrhized plants. (C) 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.This research was supported by the projects CTM2011-29972 and LIFE11/ENV/ES/000547. Fernandez-Fuego D. was funded by fellowship FICYT

Establishing the injury severity of subaxial cervical spine trauma validating the hierarchical nature of the AO spine subaxial cervical spine injury classification system

Study Design. Global cross-sectional survey. Objective. The aim of this study was to validate the AO Spine Subaxial Cervical Spine Injury Classification by examining the perceived injury severity by surgeon across AO geographical regions and practice experience. Summary of Background Data. Previous subaxial cervical spine injury classifications have been limited by subpar interobserver reliability and clinical applicability. In an attempt to create a universally validated scheme with prognostic value, AO Spine established a subaxial cervical spine injury classification involving four elements: injury morphology, facet injury involvement, neurologic status, and case-specific modifiers. Methods. A survey was sent to 272 AO Spine members across all geographic regions and with a variety of practice experience. Respondents graded the severity of each variable of the classification system on a scale from zero (low severity) to 100 (high severity). Primary outcome was to assess differences in perceived injury severity for each injury type over geographic regions and level of practice experience. Results. A total of 189 responses were received. Overall, the classification system exhibited a hierarchical progression in subtype injury severity scores. Only three subtypes showed a significant difference in injury severity score among geographic regions: F3 (floating lateral mass fracture, P ¼ 0.04), N3 (incomplete spinal cord injury, P ¼ 0.03), and M2 (critical disk herniation, P ¼ 0.04). When stratified by surgeon experience, pairwise comparison showed only two morphological subtypes, B1 (bony posterior tension band injury, P ¼ 0.02) and F2 (unstable facet fracture, P ¼ 0.03), and one neurologic subtype (N3, P ¼ 0.02) exhibited a significant difference in injury severity score. Conclusion. The AO Spine Subaxial Cervical Spine Injury Classification System has shown to be reliable and suitable for proper patient management. The study shows this classification is substantially generalizable by geographic region and surgeon experience, and provides a consistent method of communication among physicians while covering the majority of subaxial cervical spine traumatic injuries

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

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 < 0.001) and A4 (p < 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 < 0.001) and A4 (p < 0.001) fractures than their younger counterparts. Neurosurgeons were more likely to offer surgical stabilization of A3 (p < 0.001) and A4 (p < 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 < 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. © 2022 The authors

An international validation of the AO spine subaxial injury classification system

Purpose To validate the AO Spine Subaxial Injury Classification System with participants of various experience levels, subspecialties, and geographic regions. Methods A live webinar was organized in 2020 for validation of the AO Spine Subaxial Injury Classification System. The validation consisted of 41 unique subaxial cervical spine injuries with associated computed tomography scans and key images. Intraobserver reproducibility and interobserver reliability of the AO Spine Subaxial Injury Classification System were calculated for injury morphology, injury subtype, and facet injury. The reliability and reproducibility of the classification system were categorized as slight (? = 0-0.20), fair (? = 0.21-0.40), moderate (? = 0.41-0.60), substantial (? = 0.61-0.80), or excellent (? = &gt; 0.80) as determined by the Landis and Koch classification. Results A total of 203 AO Spine members participated in the AO Spine Subaxial Injury Classification System validation. The percent of participants accurately classifying each injury was over 90% for fracture morphology and fracture subtype on both assessments. The interobserver reliability for fracture morphology was excellent (? = 0.87), while fracture subtype (? = 0.80) and facet injury were substantial (? = 0.74). The intraobserver reproducibility for fracture morphology and subtype were excellent (? = 0.85, 0.88, respectively), while reproducibility for facet injuries was substantial (? = 0.76). Conclusion The AO Spine Subaxial Injury Classification System demonstrated excellent interobserver reliability and intraobserver reproducibility for fracture morphology, substantial reliability and reproducibility for facet injuries, and excellent reproducibility with substantial reliability for injury subtype

Variation in global treatment for subaxial cervical spine isolated unilateral facet fractures

Abstract Purpose To determine the variation in the global treatment practices for subaxial unilateral cervical spine facet fractures based on surgeon experience, practice setting, and surgical subspecialty. Methods A survey was sent to 272 members of the AO Spine Subaxial Injury Classification System Validation Group worldwide. Questions surveyed surgeon preferences with regard to diagnostic work-up and treatment of fracture types F1–F3, according to the AO Spine Subaxial Cervical Spine Injury Classification System, with various associated neurologic injuries. Results A total of 161 responses were received. Academic surgeons use the facet portion of the AO Spine classification system less frequently (61.6%) compared to hospital-employed and private practice surgeons (81.1% and 81.8%, respectively) (p = 0.029). The overall consensus was in favor of operative treatment for any facet fracture with radicular symptoms (N2) and for any fractures categorized as F2N2 and above. For F3N0 fractures, significantly less surgeons from Africa/Asia/Middle East (49%) and Europe (59.2%) chose operative treatment than from North/Latin/South America (74.1%) (p = 0.025). For F3N1 fractures, significantly less surgeons from Africa/Asia/Middle East (52%) and Europe (63.3%) recommended operative treatment than from North/Latin/South America (84.5%) (p = 0.001). More than 95% of surgeons included CT in their work-up of facet fractures, regardless of the type. No statistically significant differences were seen in the need for MRI to decide treatment. Conclusion Considerable agreement exists between surgeon preferences with regard to unilateral facet fracture management with few exceptions. F2N2 fracture subtypes and subtypes with radiculopathy (N2) appear to be the threshold for operative treatment. </jats:sec

Regional and experiential differences in surgeon preference for the treatment of cervical facet injuries: a case study survey with the AO Spine Cervical Classification Validation Group

Abstract Purpose The management of cervical facet dislocation injuries remains controversial. The main purpose of this investigation was to identify whether a surgeon’s geographic location or years in practice influences their preferred management of traumatic cervical facet dislocation injuries. Methods A survey was sent to 272 AO Spine members across all geographic regions and with a variety of practice experience. The survey included clinical case scenarios of cervical facet dislocation injuries and asked responders to select preferences among various diagnostic and management options. Results A total of 189 complete responses were received. Over 50% of responding surgeons in each region elected to initiate management of cervical facet dislocation injuries with an MRI, with 6 case exceptions. Overall, there was considerable agreement between American and European responders regarding management of these injuries, with only 3 cases exhibiting a significant difference. Additionally, results also exhibited considerable management agreement between those with ≤ 10 and &gt; 10 years of practice experience, with only 2 case exceptions noted. Conclusion More than half of responders, regardless of geographical location or practice experience, identified MRI as a screening imaging modality when managing cervical facet dislocation injuries, regardless of the status of the spinal cord and prior to any additional intervention. Additionally, a majority of surgeons would elect an anterior approach for the surgical management of these injuries. The study found overall agreement in management preferences of cervical facet dislocation injuries around the globe. </jats:sec

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

Development of Online Technique for International Validation of the AO Spine Subaxial Injury Classification System

Study Design Global cross-sectional survey Objective To develop and refine the techniques for web-based international validation of fracture classification systems. Methods A live webinar was organized in 2018 for validation of the AO Spine Subaxial Injury Classification System, consisting of 35 unique computed tomography (CT) scans and key images with subaxial spine injuries. Interobserver reliability and intraobserver reproducibility was calculated for injury morphology, subtype, and facet injury according to the classification system. Based on the experiences from this webinar and incorporating rater feedback, adjustments were made in the organization and techniques used and in 2020 a repeat validation webinar was performed, evaluating images of 41 unique subaxial spine injuries. Results In the 2018 session, the AO Spine Subaxial Injury Classification System demonstrated fair interobserver reliability for fracture subtype (κ = 0.35) and moderate reliability for fracture morphology and facet injury (κ=0.45, 0.43, respectively). However, in 2020, the interobserver reliability for fracture morphology (κ = 0.87) and fracture subtype (κ = 0.80) was excellent, while facet injury was substantial (κ = 0.74). Intraobserver reproducibility for injury morphology (κ =0.49) and injury subtype/facet injury were moderate (κ = 0.42) in 2018. In 2020, fracture morphology and subtype reproducibility were excellent (κ =0.85, 0.88, respectively) while reproducibility for facet injuries was substantial (κ = 0.76). Conclusion With optimized webinar-based validation techniques, the AO Spine Subaxial Injury Classification System demonstrated vast improvements in intraobserver reproducibility and interobserver reliability. Stringent fracture classification methodology is integral in obtaining accurate classification results. </jats:sec