The role of electrical stimulation for rehabilitation and regeneration after spinal cord injury

Electrical stimulation is used to elicit muscle contraction and can be utilized for neurorehabilitation following spinal cord injury when paired with voluntary motor training. This technology is now an important therapeutic intervention that results in improvement in motor function in patients with spinal cord injuries. The purpose of this review is to summarize the various forms of electrical stimulation technology that exist and their applications. Furthermore, this paper addresses the potential future of the technology

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

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

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 (ƙ = 0-0.20), fair (ƙ = 0.21-0.40), moderate (ƙ = 0.41-0.60), substantial (ƙ = 0.61-0.80), or excellent (ƙ = > 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 (ƙ = 0.87), while fracture subtype (ƙ = 0.80) and facet injury were substantial (ƙ = 0.74). The intraobserver reproducibility for fracture morphology and subtype were excellent (ƙ = 0.85, 0.88, respectively), while reproducibility for facet injuries was substantial (ƙ = 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

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

The Influence of Regional Differences on the Reliability of the AO Spine Sacral Injury Classification System.

STUDY DESIGN Global cross-sectional survey. OBJECTIVE To explore the influence of geographic region on the AO Spine Sacral Classification System. METHODS A total of 158 AO Spine and AO Trauma members from 6 AO world regions (Africa, Asia, Europe, Latin and South America, Middle East, and North America) participated in a live webinar to assess the reliability, reproducibility, and accuracy of classifying sacral fractures using the AO Spine Sacral Classification System. This evaluation was performed with 26 cases presented in randomized order on 2 occasions 3 weeks apart. RESULTS A total of 8320 case assessments were performed. All regions demonstrated excellent intraobserver reproducibility for fracture morphology. Respondents from Europe (k = .80) and North America (k = .86) achieved excellent reproducibility for fracture subtype while respondents from all other regions displayed substantial reproducibility. All regions demonstrated at minimum substantial interobserver reliability for fracture morphology and subtype. Each region demonstrated >90% accuracy in classifying fracture morphology and >80% accuracy in fracture subtype compared to the gold standard. Type C morphology (p2 = .0000) and A3 (p1 = .0280), B2 (p1 = .0015), C0 (p1 = .0085), and C2 (p1 =.0016, p2 =.0000) subtypes showed significant regional disparity in classification accuracy (p1 = Assessment 1, p2 = Assessment 2). Respondents from Asia (except in A3) and the combined group of North, Latin, and South America had accuracy percentages below the combined mean, whereas respondents from Europe consistently scored above the mean. CONCLUSIONS In a global validation study of the AO Spine Sacral Classification System, substantial reliability of both fracture morphology and subtype classification was found across all geographic regions

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

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

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 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: (1) injury morphology, (2) facet injury involvement, (3) neurologic status, and (4) 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:0.04), N3 (incomplete spinal cord injury, p:0.03), and M2 (critical disk herniation, p:0.04). When stratified by surgeon experience, pairwise comparison showed only 2 morphological subtypes, B1 (bony posterior tension band injury, p:0.02) and F2 (unstable facet fracture, p:0.03), and one neurologic subtype (N3, p:0.02) exhibited a significant difference in injury severity score. CONCLUSIONS 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.Level of Evidence: 4

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)