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

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

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)

Streamlining the Journey of Research Into Clinical Practice: Making Your Patients and Practice Flourish Optimizing Management and Minimizing Risk of Osteoporotic Vertebral Fractures - Perspectives of the AO Spine KF Trauma and Infection Group Key Opinion Leaders.

STUDY DESIGN Literature review with clinical recommendations. OBJECTIVE To highlight important studies about osteoporotic spinal fractures (OF) that may be integrated into clinical practice based on the assessment of the AO Spine KF Trauma and Infection group key opinion leaders. METHODS 4 important studies about OF that may affect current clinical practice of spinal surgeons were selected and reviewed with the aim of providing clinical recommendations to streamline the journey of research into clinical practice. Recommendations were graded as strong or conditional following the GRADE methodology. RESULTS 4 studies were selected. Article 1: a validation of the Osteoporotic Fracture (OF)-score to treat OF fractures. Conditional recommendation to incorporate the OF score in the management of fractures to improve clinical results. Article 2: a randomized multicenter study comparing romosozumab/alendronate vs alendronate to decrease the incidence of new vertebral fractures. Strong recommendation that the group receiving romosozumab/alendronate had a decreased risk of new OF when compared with the alendronate only group only. Article 3: a systematic literature review of spinal orthoses in the management of. Conditional recommendation to prescribe a spinal orthosis to decrease pain and improve quality of life. Article 4: post-traumatic deformity after OF. A conditional recommendation that middle column injury and pre-injury use of steroids may lead to high risk of post-traumatic deformity after OF. CONCLUSIONS Management of patients with OF is still complex and challenging. This review provides some recommendations that may help surgeons to better manage these patients and improve their clinical practice

The AO Spine Thoracolumbar Injury Classification System and Treatment Algorithm in Decision Making for Thoracolumbar Burst Fractures Without Neurologic Deficit

STUDY DESIGN: Prospective Observational Study. OBJECTIVE: To determine the alignment of the AO Spine Thoracolumbar Injury Classification system and treatment algorithm with contemporary surgical decision making. METHODS: 183 cases of thoracolumbar burst fractures were reviewed by 22 AO Spine Knowledge Forum Trauma experts. These experienced clinicians classified the fracture morphology, integrity of the posterior ligamentous complex and degree of comminution. Management recommendations were collected. RESULTS: There was a statistically significant stepwise increase in rates of operative management with escalating category of injury (P \u3c .001). An excellent correlation existed between recommended expert management and the actual treatment of each injury category: A0/A1/A2 (OR 1.09, 95% CI 0.70-1.69, P = .71), A3/4 (OR 1.62, 95% CI 0.98-2.66, P = .58) and B1/B2/C (1.00, 95% CI 0.87-1.14, P = .99). Thoracolumbar A4 fractures were more likely to be surgically stabilized than A3 fractures (68.2% vs 30.9%, P \u3c .001). A modifier indicating indeterminate ligamentous injury increased the rate of operative management when comparing type B and C injuries to type A3/A4 injuries (OR 39.19, 95% CI 20.84-73.69, P \u3c .01 vs OR 27.72, 95% CI 14.68-52.33, P \u3c .01). CONCLUSIONS: The AO Spine Thoracolumbar Injury Classification system introduces fracture morphology in a rational and hierarchical manner of escalating severity. Thoracolumbar A4 complete burst fractures were more likely to be operatively managed than A3 fractures. Flexion-distraction type B injuries and translational type C injuries were much more likely to have surgery recommended than type A fractures regardless of the M1 modifier. A suspected posterior ligamentous injury increased the likelihood of surgeons favoring surgical stabilization

Expert Opinion, Real-World Classification, and Decision-Making in Thoracolumbar Burst Fractures Without Neurologic Deficits?

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data. OBJECTIVES: To compare decision-making between an expert panel and real-world spine surgeons in thoracolumbar burst fractures (TLBFs) without neurological deficits and analyze which factors influence surgical decision-making. METHODS: This study is a sub-analysis of a prospective observational study in TL fractures. Twenty two experts were asked to review 183 CT scans and recommend treatment for each fracture. The expert recommendation was based on radiographic review. RESULTS: Overall agreement between the expert panel and real-world surgeons regarding surgery was 63.2%. In 36.8% of cases, the expert panel recommended surgery that was not performed in real-world scenarios. Conversely, in cases where the expert panel recommended non-surgical treatment, only 38.6% received non-surgical treatment, while 61.4% underwent surgery. A separate analysis of A3 and A4 fractures revealed that expert panel recommended surgery for 30% of A3 injuries and 68% of A4 injuries. However, 61% of patients with both A3 and A4 fractures received surgery in the real world. Multivariate analysis demonstrated that a 1% increase in certainty of PLC injury led to a 4% increase in surgery recommendation among the expert panel, while a .2% increase in the likelihood of receiving surgery in the real world. CONCLUSION: Surgical decision-making varied between the expert panel and real-world treating surgeons. Differences appear to be less evident in A3/A4 burst fractures making this specific group of fractures a real challenge independent of the level of expertise

Interobserver Reliability in the Classification of Thoracolumbar Fractures Using the AO Spine TL Injury Classification System Among 22 Clinical Experts in Spine Trauma Care

STUDY DESIGN: Reliability study utilizing 183 injury CT scans by 22 spine trauma experts with assessment of radiographic features, classification of injuries and treatment recommendations. OBJECTIVES: To assess the reliability of the AOSpine TL Injury Classification System (TLICS) including the categories within the classification and the M1 modifier. METHODS: Kappa and Intraclass correlation coefficients were produced. Associations of various imaging characteristics (comminution, PLC status) and treatment recommendations were analyzed through regression analysis. Multivariable logistic regression modeling was used for making predictive algorithms. RESULTS: Reliability of the AO Spine TLICS at differentiating A3 and A4 injuries (N = 71) (K = .466; 95% CI .458 – .474; P \u3c .001) demonstrated moderate agreement. Similarly, the average intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) amongst A3 and A4 injuries was excellent (ICC = .934; 95% CI .919 – .947; P \u3c .001) and the ICC between individual measures was moderate (ICC = .403; 95% CI .351 – .461; P \u3c .001). The overall agreement on the utilization of the M1 modifier amongst A3 and A4 injuries was fair (K = .161; 95% CI .151 – .171; P \u3c .001). The ICC for PLC status in A3 and A4 injuries averaged across all measures was excellent (ICC = .936; 95% CI .922 – .949; P \u3c .001). The M1 modifier suggests respondents are nearly 40% more confident that the PLC is injured amongst all injuries. The M1 modifier was employed at a higher frequency as injuries were classified higher in the classification system. CONCLUSIONS: The reliability of surgeons differentiating between A3 and A4 injuries in the AOSpine TLICS is substantial and the utilization of the M1 modifier occurs more frequently with higher grades in the system

The Diagnostic Process of Spinal Post-Traumatic Deformity: An Expert Survey of 7 Cases, Consensus on Clinical Relevance Does Exist

STUDY DESIGN: Survey of cases. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the opinion of experts in the diagnostic process of clinically relevant Spinal Post-traumatic Deformity (SPTD). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: SPTD is a potential complication of spine trauma that can cause decreased function and quality of life impairment. The question of when SPTD becomes clinically relevant is yet to be resolved. METHODS: The survey of 7 cases was sent to 31 experts. The case presentation was medical history, diagnostic assessment, evaluation of diagnostic assessment, diagnosis, and treatment options. Means, ranges, percentages of participants, and descriptive statistics were calculated. RESULTS: Seventeen spinal surgeons reviewed the presented cases. The items\u27 fracture type and complaints were rated by the participants as more important, but no agreement existed on the items of medical history. In patients with possible SPTD in the cervical spine (C) area, participants requested a conventional radiograph (CR) (76%-83%), a flexion/extension CR (61%-71%), a computed tomography (CT)-scan (76%-89%), and a magnetic resonance (MR)-scan (89%-94%). In thoracolumbar spine (ThL) cases, full spine CR (89%-100%), CT scan (72%-94%), and MR scan (65%-94%) were requested most often. There was a consensus on 5 out of 7 cases with clinically relevant SPTD (82%-100%). When consensus existed on the diagnosis of SPTD, there was a consensus on the case being compensated or decompensated and being symptomatic or asymptomatic. CONCLUSIONS: There was strong agreement in 5 out of 7 cases on the presence of the diagnosis of clinically relevant SPTD. Among spine experts, there is a strong consensus to use CT scan and MR scan, a cervical CR for C-cases, and a full spine CR for ThL-cases. The lack of agreement on items of the medical history suggests that a Delphi study can help us reach a consensus on the essential items of clinically relevant SPTD. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level V