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 (< 5 years, 5–10 years, 10–20 years, and > 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 (< 5 years: 0.74 vs 5–10 years: 0.69 vs 10–20 years: 0.69 vs > 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 (< 5 years: 0.67 vs 5–10 years: 0.62 vs 10–20 years: 0.61 vs > 20 years: 0.62), and only surgeons with > 20 years of experience did not have substantial reliability on assessment 2 (< 5 years: 0.62 vs 5–10 years: 0.61 vs 10–20 years: 0.61 vs > 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

Progetto per una rete di inquadramento per la realizzazione di cartografia in Angola

Dottorato di ricerca in scienze geodetiche. Coordinatore Luigi Mussio, tutore Fausto Sacerdote e Maurizio BarbarellaConsiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche - Biblioteca Centrale - P.le Aldo Moro, 7 Rome; Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale - P.za Cavalleggeri, 1, Florence / CNR - Consiglio Nazionale delle RichercheSIGLEITItal

Is There A Role For Decompression Alone For Treating Symptomatic Degenerative Lumbar Spondylolisthesis?: A Systematic Review.

A posterior decompression with an instrumented fusion is one of the most common surgical procedures performed for treating symptomatic spinal stenosis associated with degenerative spondylolisthesis (DS). However, some patients may benefit from a decompression alone, avoiding complications related to instrumentation and fusion. To identify the characteristics of patients with symptomatic DS who may be successfully treated with an isolated decompression. A systematic literature review of studies including patients who underwent decompression without instrumentation for treatment of DS. A systematic review of the Medline database was performed. Retrospective and prospective studies of patients with DS who underwent a decompression were included, as well as studies comparing decompression with instrumented decompression. All the articles were classified according to their level of evidence. Thirteen studies met all inclusion and exclusion criteria. We identified several characteristics that may be associated with a less favorable outcome after a decompression alone: a facet angle >50 degrees, a disk space of >6.5 mm, presence of low back pain rather than lower extremity symptoms, presence of hypermobility in the listhetic level on dynamic radiographs (>1.25 to 2 mm), and resection of the posterior elements. The majority of the studies comparing decompression alone to decompression and instrumented fusion included in our review suggested similar clinical outcomes with both procedures; however, with long-term follow-up, fusion may provide better outcomes. Decompression with a noninstrumented fusion is also a good alternative to improve symptoms in selected patients, potentially decreasing the risk of reoperation compared with an instrumented fusion. Satisfactory clinical outcome can be achieved with an isolated decompression in selected patients, avoiding the additional risks and costs of instrumentation and spinal fusion. Noninstrumented fusion is also an interesting alternative to instrumented fusion for well-selected patients to decrease complications related to instrumentation

Intraoperative vancomycin powder and postoperative infection after spinal surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Sem informação65225326