Evaluation of morbidity, mortality and outcome following cervical spine injuries in elderly patients (S. A. Malik et al.)

Contains fulltext : 71260.pdf (publisher's version ) (Closed access

What should an ideal spinal injury classification system consist of? A methodological review and conceptual proposal for future classifications

Since Böhler published the first categorization of spinal injuries based on plain radiographic examinations in 1929, numerous classifications have been proposed. Despite all these efforts, however, only a few have been tested for reliability and validity. This methodological, conceptual review summarizes that a spinal injury classification system should be clinically relevant, reliable and accurate. The clinical relevance of a classification is directly related to its content validity. The ideal content of a spinal injury classification should only include injury characteristics of the vertebral column, is primarily based on the increasingly routinely performed CT imaging, and is clearly distinctive from severity scales and treatment algorithms. Clearly defined observation and conversion criteria are crucial determinants of classification systems’ reliability and accuracy. Ideally, two principle spinal injury characteristics should be easy to discern on diagnostic images: the specific location and morphology of the injured spinal structure. Given the current evidence and diagnostic imaging technology, descriptions of the mechanisms of injury and ligamentous injury should not be included in a spinal injury classification. The presence of concomitant neurologic deficits can be integrated in a spinal injury severity scale, which in turn can be considered in a spinal injury treatment algorithm. Ideally, a validation pathway of a spinal injury classification system should be completed prior to its clinical and scientific implementation. This review provides a methodological concept which might be considered prior to the synthesis of new or modified spinal injury classifications

Letter to the Editor regarding “Scheuermann’s kyphosis: surgical management” (V. Arlet, D. Schlenzka)

Contains fulltext : 50723.pdf (publisher's version ) (Closed access

Ten Meters Walking Speed in Spinal Cord-Injured Patients: Does Speed Predict Who Walks and Who Rolls?

Background. Walking speed is assumed to be a key factor in regaining ambulation after spinal cord injury (SCI). However, from the literature it remains unclear which walking speed usually results in independent community ambulation. Objective. The primary aim of this study was to determine at which walking speed SCI patients tend to walk in the community instead of using a wheelchair. The secondary aim was to investigate clinical conditions that favor independent ambulation in the community. Methods. Data from SCI patients were collected retrospectively from the European Multicenter Study about Spinal Cord Injury database. We determined a cutoff walking speed at which the patients tend to walk in the community by plotting a receiver operating characteristics curve, using the Spinal Cord Independence Measure for outdoor mobility. Univariate analyses investigated which factors influence independent community ambulation. Results. A walking speed of 0.59 m/s is the cutoff between patients who do and do not ambulate independently in the community, with a sensitivity of 91.6% and a specificity of 80.3%. Age, injury severity, and lower limb muscle strength have a significant influence on independent community ambulation. Conclusions. Patients with an SCI who regain a walking speed of 0.59 m/s tend to achieve a level of walking effectiveness that allows for independent community walking. Although such patients tend to be younger and less severely injured, this walking speed can be a target for locomotor training in rehabilitation and clinical trials that lead to a meaningful outcome level of community walking.</jats:p

Reliability, validity and responsiveness of the Dutch version of the AOSpine PROST (Patient Reported Outcome Spine Trauma).

PURPOSE To validate the Dutch version of AOSpine PROST (Patient Reported Outcome Spine Trauma). METHODS Patients were recruited from two level-1 trauma centers from the Netherlands. Next to the AOSpine PROST, patients also filled out SF-36 for concurrent validity. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze the characteristics. Content validity was assessed by evaluating the number of inapplicable or missing questions. Also floor and ceiling effects were analyzed. Internal consistency was assessed by calculating Cronbach's α and item-total correlation coefficients (itcc). Spearman correlation tests were performed within AOSpine PROST items and in correlation with SF-36. Test-retest reliability was analyzed using Intraclass Correlation Coefficients (ICC). Responsiveness was assessed by calculating effect sizes (ES) and standardized response mean (SRM). Factor analysis was performed to explore any dimensions within AOSpine PROST. RESULTS Out of 179 enrolled patients, 163 (91.1%) were included. Good results were obtained for content validity. No floor or ceiling effects were seen. Internal consistency was excellent (Cronbach's α = 0.96, itcc 0.50-0.86), with also good Spearman correlations (0.25-0.79). Compared to SF-36, the strongest correlation was seen for physical functioning (0.79; p  1), explaining 65.4% of variance. CONCLUSIONS Very satisfactory results were obtained for reliability, validity and responsiveness of the Dutch version of AOSpine PROST. Treating surgeons are encouraged to use this novel and validated tool in clinical setting and research to contribute to evidence-based and patient-centered care

Reliability, validity and responsiveness of the Dutch version of the AOSpine PROST (Patient Reported Outcome Spine Trauma).

PURPOSE: To validate the Dutch version of AOSpine PROST (Patient Reported Outcome Spine Trauma). METHODS: Patients were recruited from two level-1 trauma centers from the Netherlands. Next to the AOSpine PROST, patients also filled out SF-36 for concurrent validity. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze the characteristics. Content validity was assessed by evaluating the number of inapplicable or missing questions. Also floor and ceiling effects were analyzed. Internal consistency was assessed by calculating Cronbach\u27s α and item-total correlation coefficients (itcc). Spearman correlation tests were performed within AOSpine PROST items and in correlation with SF-36. Test-retest reliability was analyzed using Intraclass Correlation Coefficients (ICC). Responsiveness was assessed by calculating effect sizes (ES) and standardized response mean (SRM). Factor analysis was performed to explore any dimensions within AOSpine PROST. RESULTS: Out of 179 enrolled patients, 163 (91.1%) were included. Good results were obtained for content validity. No floor or ceiling effects were seen. Internal consistency was excellent (Cronbach\u27s α = 0.96, itcc 0.50-0.86), with also good Spearman correlations (0.25-0.79). Compared to SF-36, the strongest correlation was seen for physical functioning (0.79; p \u3c .001). Also test-retest reliability was excellent (ICC = 0.92). Concerning responsiveness analysis, very good results were seen with ES = 1.81 and SRM = 2.03 (p \u3c 0.001). Factor analysis revealed two possible dimensions (Eigenvalues \u3e 1), explaining 65.4% of variance. CONCLUSIONS: Very satisfactory results were obtained for reliability, validity and responsiveness of the Dutch version of AOSpine PROST. Treating surgeons are encouraged to use this novel and validated tool in clinical setting and research to contribute to evidence-based and patient-centered care

Reliability, validity and responsiveness of the Dutch version of the AOSpine PROST (Patient Reported Outcome Spine Trauma)

Purpose: To validate the Dutch version of AOSpine PROST (Patient Reported Outcome Spine Trauma). Methods: Patients were recruited from two level-1 trauma centers from the Netherlands. Next to the AOSpine PROST, patients also filled out SF-36 for concurrent validity. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze the characteristics. Content validity was assessed by evaluating the number of inapplicable or missing questions. Also floor and ceiling effects were analyzed. Internal consistency was assessed by calculating Cronbach’s α and item-total correlation coefficients (itcc). Spearman correlation tests were performed within AOSpine PROST items and in correlation with SF-36. Test–retest reliability was analyzed using Intraclass Correlation Coefficients (ICC). Responsiveness was assessed by calculating effect sizes (ES) and standardized response mean (SRM). Factor analysis was performed to explore any dimensions within AOSpine PROST. Results: Out of 179 enrolled patients, 163 (91.1%) were included. Good results were obtained for content validity. No floor or ceiling effects were seen. Internal consistency was excellent (Cronbach’s α = 0.96, itcc 0.50–0.86), with also good Spearman correlations (0.25–0.79). Compared to SF-36, the strongest correlation was seen for physical functioning (0.79; p 1), explaining 65.4% of variance. Conclusions: Very satisfactory results were obtained for reliability, validity and responsiveness of the Dutch version of AOSpine PROST. Treating surgeons are encouraged to use this novel and validated tool in clinical setting and research to contribute to evidence-based and patient-centered care

NDI with 95%CI at different follow-up moments for the complete sample.

<p>NDI with 95%CI at different follow-up moments for the complete sample.</p