Reliability and Validity of the German Version of the AO Spine Patient Reported Outcome Spine Trauma Questionnaire.

STUDY DESIGN A single-center validation study. OBJECTIVE To translate and cross-culturally adapt the AO Spine PROST (Patient Reported Outcome Spine Trauma) into German, and to test its psychometric properties among German-speaking Swiss spine trauma patients. METHODS Patients were recruited from a level-1 Swiss trauma center. Next to the AO Spine PROST, the EQ-5D-3L questionnaire was used for concurrent validity. Questionnaires were filled out at two-time points for test-retest reliability. Patient characteristics were analyzed using descriptive statistics. For content validity, floor, and ceiling effects, as well as any irrelevant and missing questions were analyzed. Construct validity of the AO Spine PROST questionnaire to the EQ-5D-3L was tested using Spearman correlation tests. RESULTS The AOSpine PROST was translated and adapted into German using established guidelines. We included 179 patients. The floor effect for all items was well within the optimal range (below 15%), while the ceiling effect of seven items was within the optimal range. None of the items displayed a problematic floor or ceiling effect. The overall test-retest reliability of the total PROST score was excellent, with an ICC of .83 (95% CI .69-.91). The Spearman correlation coefficient between the total PROST summary score and EQ-5D-3 L was ρ = .63. CONCLUSIONS The German version of the AO Spine PROST questionnaire demonstrated very good validity and reliability results

Health professionals’ perspective on the applicability of AO Spine PROST (patient reported outcome Spine trauma) in people with a motor-complete traumatic or non-traumatic spinal cord injury

Purpose: The AO Spine PROST (Patient Reported Outcome Spine Trauma) was developed for people with spine trauma and minor or no neurological impairment. The purpose is to investigate health professionals’ perspective on the applicability of the AO Spine PROST for people with motor-complete traumatic or non-traumatic spinal cord injury (SCI), using a discussion meeting and international survey study. Methods: A discussion meeting with SCI rehabilitation physicians in the Netherlands was performed, followed by a worldwide online survey among the AO Spine International community, involved in the care of people with SCI. Participants rated the comprehensibility, relevance, acceptability, feasibility and completeness of the AO Spine PROST on a 1–5 point scale (5 most positive). Comments could be provided per question. Results: The discussion meeting was attended by 13 SCI rehabilitation physicians. The survey was completed by 196 participants. Comprehensibility (mean ± SD: 4.1 ± 0.8), acceptability (4.0 ± 0.8), relevance (3.9 ± 0.8), completeness (3.9 ± 0.8), and feasibility (4.1 ± 0.7) of the AO Spine PROST were rated positively for use in people with motor-complete traumatic or non-traumatic SCI. Only a few participants questioned the relevance of items on the lower extremities (e.g., walking) or missed items on pulmonary functioning and complications. Some recommendations were made for improvement in instructions, terminology and examples of the tool. Conclusion: Health professionals found the AO Spine PROST generally applicable for people with motor-complete traumatic or non-traumatic SCI. This study provides further evidence for the use of the AO Spine PROST in spine trauma care, rehabilitation and research, as well as suggestions for its further development.</p

Neurological recovery after traumatic spinal cord injury:what is meaningful? A patients' and physicians' perspective

Study design: Cross-sectional survey. Objectives: Most studies on neurological recovery after traumatic spinal cord injury (tSCI) assess treatment effects using the American Spinal Injury Association Impairment Scale (AIS grade) or motor points recovery. To what extent neurological recovery is considered clinically meaningful is unknown. This study investigated the perceived clinical benefit of various degrees of neurological recovery one year after C5 AIS-A tSCI. Setting: The Netherlands. Methods: By means of a web-based survey SCI patients and physicians evaluated the benefit of various scenarios of neurological recovery on a scale from 0 to 100% (0% no benefit to 100% major benefit). Recovery to AIS-C and D, was split into C/C+ and D/D+, which was defined by the lower and upper limit of recovery for each grade. Results: A total of 79 patients and 77 physicians participated in the survey. Each AIS grade improvement from AIS-A was considered significant benefit (all p < 0.05), ranging from 47.8% (SD 26.1) for AIS-B to 86.8% (SD 24.3) for AIS-D+. Motor level lowering was also considered significant benefit (p < 0.05), ranging from 66.1% (SD 22.3) for C6 to 81.7% (SD 26.0) for C8. Conclusions: Meaningful recovery can be achieved without improving in AIS grade, since the recovery of functional motor levels appears to be as important as improving in AIS grade by both patients and physicians. Moreover, minor neurological improvements within AIS-C and D are also considered clinically meaningful. Future studies should incorporate more detailed neurological outcomes to prevent potential underestimation of neurological recovery by only using the AIS grade

Development and reliability of the AOSpine CROST (Clinician Reported Outcome Spine Trauma): a tool to evaluate and predict outcomes from clinician’s perspective

Purpose: To report on the development of AOSpine CROST (Clinician Reported Outcome Spine Trauma) and results of an initial reliability study. Methods: The AOSpine CROST was developed using an iterative approach of multiple cycles of development, review, and revision including an expert clinician panel. Subsequently, a reliability study was performed among an expert panel who were provided with 20 spine trauma cases, administered twice with 4-week interval. The results of the developmental process were analyzed using descriptive statistics, the reliability per parameter using Kappa statistics, inter-rater rater agreement using intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), and internal consistency using Cronbach’s α. Results: The AOSpine CROST was developed and consisted of 10 parameters, 2 of which are only applicable for surgically treated patents (‘Wound healing’ and ‘Implants’). A dichotomous scoring system (‘yes’ or ‘no’ response) was incorporated to express expected problems for the short term and long term. In the reliability study, 16 (84.2%) participated in the first round and 14 (73.7%) in the second. Intra-rater reliability was fair to good for both time points (κ = 0.40–0.80 and κ = 0.31–0.67). Results of inter-rater reliability were lower (κ = 0.18–0.60 and κ = 0.16–0.46). Inter-rater agreement for total scores showed moderate results (ICC = 0.52–0.60), and the internal consistency was acceptable (α = 0.76–0.82). Conclusions: The AOSpine CROST, an outcome tool for the surgeons, was developed using an iterative process. An initial reliability analysis showed fair to moderate results and acceptable internal consistency. Further clinical validation studies will be performed to further validate the tool

Spine Trauma Outcome Measures for Patients and Clinicians

Many issues remain unresolved concerning the optimal management of spine trauma. There is a real need for outcome instrument(s) specifically designed for spine trauma patients. Such instruments would make it possible to compare outcomes of spine injuries between and within studies in a valid and reliable fashion, contributing to the advancement of spine trauma care and research. At the start of our study, no outcome measure was specifically designed or validated for spinal column injury patients with only mild, transient or no neurological impairment. Similarly, no clinician-reported measure was available for spine trauma patients. The aforementioned challenges were adopted, and using a solid methodology and conducting various preparatory studies led to the development of such instruments, which have the potential to be applied in a worldwide setting. Two outcomes measurement instruments were developed: one from the patient’s perspective (AOSpine PROST [Patient Reported Outcome Spine Trauma]), and another from the perspective of the treating surgeons (AOSpine CROST [Clinician Reported Outcome Spine Trauma]). With the development of the AOSpine PROST and AOSpine CROST, and once the validation studies are completed, there is a significant potential to eventually contribute to the standardization of outcome measures in spine trauma. Treating surgeons around the world are encouraged to use these tools in daily clinical practice and for research purposes to create and contribute to evidence-based and patient-centered care. Using the same outcome measures that are specifically developed and validated for traumatic spine injuries will allow us to compare the outcomes of various treatments in a valid and reproducible fashion to reduce the ongoing controversies and provide the best treatments for our patients

Spine Trauma Outcome Measures for Patients and Clinicians

Many issues remain unresolved concerning the optimal management of spine trauma. There is a real need for outcome instrument(s) specifically designed for spine trauma patients. Such instruments would make it possible to compare outcomes of spine injuries between and within studies in a valid and reliable fashion, contributing to the advancement of spine trauma care and research. At the start of our study, no outcome measure was specifically designed or validated for spinal column injury patients with only mild, transient or no neurological impairment. Similarly, no clinician-reported measure was available for spine trauma patients. The aforementioned challenges were adopted, and using a solid methodology and conducting various preparatory studies led to the development of such instruments, which have the potential to be applied in a worldwide setting. Two outcomes measurement instruments were developed: one from the patient’s perspective (AOSpine PROST [Patient Reported Outcome Spine Trauma]), and another from the perspective of the treating surgeons (AOSpine CROST [Clinician Reported Outcome Spine Trauma]). With the development of the AOSpine PROST and AOSpine CROST, and once the validation studies are completed, there is a significant potential to eventually contribute to the standardization of outcome measures in spine trauma. Treating surgeons around the world are encouraged to use these tools in daily clinical practice and for research purposes to create and contribute to evidence-based and patient-centered care. Using the same outcome measures that are specifically developed and validated for traumatic spine injuries will allow us to compare the outcomes of various treatments in a valid and reproducible fashion to reduce the ongoing controversies and provide the best treatments for our patients

TWO-YEAR MORTALITY AND END-OF-LIFE DECISIONS AFTER TRAUMATIC SPINAL CORD INJURY:DATA FROM A LEVEL 1 TRAUMA CENTRE IN THE NETHERLANDS

Objective: Literature shows high in-hospital mortality rates following end-of-life decisions in patients with traumatic spinal cord injury. This study investi-gated 2-year mortality and end-of-life decisions in patients with traumatic spinal cord injury. Design: Explorative retrospective study in a Dutch level 1 trauma centre. Patients: All consecutive patients between 2015 and 2020 with new traumatic spinal cord injury were selected from the trauma registry. Patients were excluded if myelopathy, cauda equina, or conus medullaris injury was absent or if they were referred to another level 1 trauma centre. Methods: Mortality and end-of-life decisions (i.e. withdrawal and withholding of treatment, and eutha-nasia) within 2 years were analysed. Demographics, injury and clinical characteristics, and hospital treatment outcomes were compared with survi-vors. Motivations and critical morbidities concerning end-of-life decisions were assessed. Results: The sample included 219 patients. Two-year mortality was 26% (n = 56), in-hospital mortality was 16%. The deceased were older, had more comorbidi-ties and more severe injuries. end-of-life decisions concerned 42 patients (75%), mostly motivated by loss of independence or poor outcomes. Three patients received euthanasia (5%). The largest group with end-of-life decisions also sustained mode-rate-severe traumatic brain injuries (n = 11; 26%). Conclusion: Most patients with traumatic spinal cord injury died following an end-of-life decision, with the largest group sustaining concomitant traumatic brain injuries. The incidence of euthanasia was low.</p