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

Mechanical concepts for disc regeneration

Different strategies exist to treat intervertebral disc degeneration. Biological attempts to regenerate the disc are promising. However, degeneration of the disc is always accompanied by alterations of disc height, intradiscal pressure, load distribution, and motion patterns, respectively. Since those preconditions are independent factors for disc degeneration, it is unlikely that regeneration may occur without firstly restoring the physiological status of the affected spinal segment. In vitro and in vivo animal studies demonstrate that disc distraction normalizes intradiscal height and pressure. Furthermore, histological and radiological examinations provided some evidence for regenerative processes in the disc. Only dynamic stabilization systems currently offer the potential of a mechanical approach to intervertebral disc regeneration. Dynamic stabilization systems either using pedicle screws or with an interspinous device, demonstrate restabilization of spinal segments and reduction of intradiscal pressure. Clinical reports of patients with degenerative disc disease who underwent dynamic stabilization are promising. However, there is no evidence that those implants will lead to disc regeneration. Future treatment concepts should combine intradiscal cell based therapy together with dynamic restoration of the affected spinal segment