Open Posterior Reduction and Stabilization of AO Spine C3 Sacral Fractures.

AO Spine C3 sacral fractures are defined by separation of the spine including S1 from the pelvic ring and are usually result of a high-energy injury. Besides their high biomechanical instability and high rate of associated neurological impairment, these fractures are often extremely difficult to reduce due to severe bony impaction and dislocation. Additional difficulties in management of these fractures arise from only a thin-layer of soft-tissue coverage overlying the injured area

Does the Spine Surgeon’s Experience Affect Fracture Classification, Assessment of Stability, and Treatment Plan in Thoracolumbar Injuries?

Study Design: Prospective survey-based study. Objectives: The AO Spine thoracolumbar injury classification has been shown to have good reproducibility among clinicians. However, the influence of spine surgeons’ clinical experience on fracture classification, stability assessment, and decision on management based on this classification has not been studied. Furthermore, the usefulness of varying imaging modalities including radiographs, computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in the decision process was also studied. Methods: Forty-one spine surgeons from different regions, acquainted with the AOSpine classification system, were provided with 30 thoracolumbar fractures in a 3-step assessment: first radiographs, followed by CT and MRI. Surgeons classified the fracture, evaluated stability, chose management, and identified reasons for any changes. The surgeons were divided into 2 groups based on years of clinical experience as \u3c10 years (n = 12) and \u3e10 years (n = 29). Results: There were no significant differences between the 2 groups in correctly classifying A1, B2, and C type fractures. Surgeons with less experience hadmore correct diagnosis in classifyingA3 (47.2% vs 38.5%in step 1, 73.6% vs 60.3% in step 2 and 77.8% vs 65.5% in step 3), A4 (16.7% vs 24.1% in step 1, 72.9% vs 57.8% in step 2 and 70.8% vs 56.0%in step3) and B1 injuries (31.9% vs 20.7% in step 1, 41.7% vs 36.8% in step 2 and 38.9% vs 33.9% in step 3). In the assessment of fracture stability and decision on treatment, the less and more experienced surgeons performed equally. The selection of a particular treatment plan varied in all subtypes except in A1 and C type injuries. Conclusion: Surgeons’ experience did not significantly affect overall fracture classification, evaluating stability and planning the treatment. Surgeons with less experience had a higher percentage of correct classification in A3 and A4 injuries. Despite variations between them in classification, the assessment of overall stability and management decisions were similar between the 2 groups. © The Author(s) 2017

AOSpine—Spine Trauma Classification System: The Value of Modifiers: A Narrative Review With Commentary on Evolving Descriptive Principles

Study Design: Narrative review. Objectives: To describe the current AOSpine Trauma Classification system for spinal trauma and highlight the value of patient-specific modifiers for facilitating communication and nuances in treatment. Methods: The classification for spine trauma previously developed by The AOSpine Knowledge Forum is reviewed and the importance of case modifiers in this system is discussed. Results: A successful classification system facilitates communication and agreement between physicians while also determining injury severity and provides guidance on prognosis and treatment. As each injury may be unique among different patients, the importance of considering patient-specific characteristics is highlighted in this review. In the current AOSpine Trauma Classification, the spinal column is divided into 4 regions: the upper cervical spine (C0-C2), subaxial cervical spine (C3-C7), thoracolumbar spine (T1-L5), and the sacral spine (S1-S5, including coccyx). Each region is classified according to a hierarchical system with increasing levels of injury or instability and represents the morphology of the injury, neurologic status, and clinical modifiers. Specifically, these clinical modifiers are denoted starting with M followed by a number. They describe unique conditions that may change treatment approach such as the presence of significant soft tissue damage, uncertainty about posterior tension band injury, or the presence of a critical disc herniation in a cervical bilateral facet dislocation. These characteristics are described in detail for each spinal region. Conclusions: Patient-specific modifiers in the AOSpine Trauma Classification highlight unique clinical characteristics for each injury and facilitate communication and treatment between surgeons

Combined Odontoid (C2) and Atlas (C1) Fractures in Geriatric Patients: A Systematic Review and Treatment Recommendation

Study DesignSystematic review.ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to conduct a systematic overview of the pathogenesis and the treatment options of combined odontoid and atlas fractures in geriatric patients.MethodsThis review is based on articles retrieved by a systematic search in the PubMed and Web of Science databases for articles published until February 2021 dealing with combination fractures of C1 and C2 in geriatric patients.ResultsAltogether, 438 articles were retrieved from the literature search. A total of 430 articles were excluded. The remaining eight original articles were included in this systematic review depicting the topics pathogenesis, non-operative treatment, posterior approach, and anterior approach. The overall level of evidence of the studies is low.ConclusionCombined odontoid and atlas fractures in the geriatric population are commonly caused by simple falls and seem to be associated with atlanto-odontoid osteoarthritis. Non-operative treatment with a cervical orthosis is a feasible treatment option in the majority of patients with stable C2 fractures. In case of surgery posterior C1 and C 2 stabilization and anterior triple or quadruple screw fixation are possible techniques. Some patients may also deserve an occipito-cervical fusion. A possible treatment algorithm is proposed

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

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

Evolution of the AO Spine Sacral and Pelvic Classification System: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE The purpose of this study was to describe the genesis of the AO Spine Sacral and Pelvic Classification System in the context of historical sacral and pelvic grading systems. METHODS A systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, Google Scholar, and Cochrane databases was performed consistent with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines to identify all existing sacral and pelvic fracture classification systems. RESULTS A total of 49 articles were included in this review, comprising 23 pelvic classification systems and 17 sacral grading schemes. The AO Spine Sacral and Pelvic Classification System represents both the evolutionary product of these historical systems and a reinvention of classic concepts in 5 ways. First, the classification introduces fracture types in a graduated order of biomechanical stability while also taking into consideration the neurological status of patients. Second, the traditional belief that Denis central zone III fractures have the highest rate of neurological deficit is not supported because this subgroup often includes a broad spectrum of injuries ranging from a benign sagittally oriented undisplaced fracture to an unstable "U-type" fracture. Third, the 1990 Isler lumbosacral system is adopted in its original format to divide injuries based on their likelihood of affecting posterior pelvic or spinopelvic stability. Fourth, new discrete fracture subtypes are introduced and the importance of bilateral injuries is acknowledged. Last, this is the first integrated sacral and pelvic classification to date. CONCLUSIONS The AO Spine Sacral and Pelvic Classification is a universally applicable system that redefines and reorders historical fracture morphologies into a rational hierarchy. This is the first classification to simultaneously address the biomechanical stability of the posterior pelvic complex and spinopelvic stability, while also taking into consideration neurological status. Further high-quality controlled trials are required prior to the inclusion of this novel classification within a validated scoring system to guide the management of sacral and pelvic injuries

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