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

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 infuences 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 signifcant diference. 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, identifed 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. Keywords Cervical spine · Trauma · Spinal injuries · Joint dislocations · Neck injuries · Spinal disease

Perioperative Chanage in Cervical Lordosis and Health-Related Quality-of-Life Outcomes

BACKGROUND: Surgeons have scrutinized spinal alignment and its impact on improving clinical outcomes following anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF). The primary analysis of this study examines the relationship between change in perioperative cervical lordosis (CL) and health-related quality-of-life (HRQOL) outcomes after ACDF. Secondary analysis evaluates the effects of fusion construct length on outcomes in patients grouped by preoperative cervical alignment. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was performed on an institutional database including patients who underwent 1- to 3-level ACDF. C2-C7 CL was measured preoperatively and at final follow-up. For primary analysis, patients were classified based on their perioperative cervical lordotic correction: (1) kyphotic, (2) maintained, and (3) restored. For secondary analysis, patients were categorized based on their preoperative C2-C7 CL: (1) kyphotic, (2) neutral, and (3) lordotic. Demographics and perioperative change in patient-reported outcome measures were compared between groups. RESULTS: A total of 308 patients were included. A significant difference was noted among maintained, restored, and kyphotic groups in terms of delta physical compositeshort form-12 score (ΔPCS-12) (9.0 vs 10.3 vs 1.5; CONCLUSIONS: Significantly greater PCS-12 and VAS arm improvement were seen in patients whose cervical sagittal alignment was restored to neutral/lordotic compared with those who remained kyphotic. Multivariate analysis demonstrated no association between construct length and perioperative outcomes. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The results of this study highlight the importance of sagittal alignment and restoration of CL after short-segment ACDF. Irrespective of preoperative sagittal alignment, the length of ACDF fusion construct does not have a significant impact on clinical outcomes

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\u27s 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 \u3e 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