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

Georg Schmorl prize of the German spine society (DWG) 2022: current treatment for inpatients with osteoporotic thoracolumbar fractures-results of the EOFTT study

AIM Osteoporotic thoracolumbar fractures are of increasing importance. To identify the optimal treatment strategy this multicentre prospective cohort study was performed. PURPOSE Patients suffering from osteoporotic thoracolumbar fractures were included. Excluded were tumour diseases, infections and limb fractures. Age, sex, trauma mechanism, OF classification, OF-score, treatment strategy, pain condition and mobilization were analysed. METHODS A total of 518 patients' aged 75 ± 10 (41-97) years were included in 17 centre. A total of 174 patients were treated conservatively, and 344 were treated surgically, of whom 310 (90%) received minimally invasive treatment. An increase in the OF classification was associated with an increase in both the likelihood of surgery and the surgical invasiveness. RESULTS Five (3%) complications occurred during conservative treatment, and 46 (13%) occurred in the surgically treated patients. 4 surgical site infections and 2 mechanical failures requested revision surgery. At discharge pain improved significantly from a visual analogue scale score of 7.7 (surgical) and 6.0 (conservative) to a score of 4 in both groups (p < 0.001). Over the course of treatment, mobility improved significantly (p = 0.001), with a significantly stronger (p = 0.007) improvement in the surgically treated patients. CONCLUSION Fracture severity according to the OF classification is significantly correlated with higher surgery rates and higher invasiveness of surgery. The most commonly used surgical strategy was minimally invasive short-segmental hybrid stabilization followed by kyphoplasty/vertebroplasty. Despite the worse clinical conditions of the surgically treated patients both conservative and surgical treatment led to an improved pain situation and mobility during the inpatient stay to nearly the same level for both treatments

Treatment and Outcome of Osteoporotic Thoracolumbar Vertebral Fractures With Anterior or Posterior Tension Band Failure (OF 5): Short-Term Results From the Prospective EOFTT Multicenter Study.

STUDY DESIGN Subgroup analysis of a multicenter prospective cohort study. OBJECTIVE To analyse surgical strategies applied to osteoporotic thoracolumbar osteoporotic fracture (OF) 5 injuries with anterior or posterior tension band failure and to assess related complications and clinical outcome. METHODS A multicenter prospective cohort study (EOFTT) was conducted at 17 spine centers including 518 consecutive patients who were treated for an osteoporotic vertebral fracture (OVF). For the present study, only patients with OF 5 fractures were analysed. Outcome parameters were complications, Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), Oswestry Disability Questionnaire (ODI), Timed Up & Go test (TUG), EQ-5D 5L, and Barthel Index. RESULTS In total, 19 patients (78 ± 7 years, 13 female) were analysed. Operative treatment consisted of long-segment posterior instrumentation in 9 cases and short-segment posterior instrumentation in 10 cases. Pedicle screws were augmented in 68 %, augmentation of the fractured vertebra was performed in 42%, and additional anterior reconstruction was done in 21 %. Two patients (11 %) received short-segment posterior instrumentation without either anterior reconstruction or cement-augmentation of the fractured vertebra. No surgical or major complications occurred, but general postoperative complications were observed in 45%. At a follow-up of mean 20 ± 10 weeks (range, 12 to 48 weeks), patients showed significant improvements in all functional outcome parameters. CONCLUSIONS In this analysis of patients with type OF 5 fractures, surgical stabilization was the treatment of choice and lead to significant short-term improvement in terms of functional outcome and quality of life despite a high general complication rate

Treatment and Outcome of Osteoporotic Thoracolumbar Vertebral Body Fractures With Deformation of Both Endplates With or Without Posterior Wall Involvement (OF 4): Short-Term Results from the Prospective EOFTT Multicenter Study.

STUDY DESIGN: Multicenter prospective cohort study. OBJECTIVE: To analyse therapeutical strategies applied to osteoporotic thoracolumbar OF 4 injuries, to assess related complications and clinical outcome. METHODS: A multicenter prospective cohort study (EOFTT) including 518 consecutive patients who were treated for an Osteoporotic vertebral compression fracture (OVCF). For the present study, only patients with OF 4 fractures were analysed. Outcome parameters were complications, Visual Analogue Scale, Oswestry Disability Questionnaire, Timed Up & Go test, EQ-5D 5L, and Barthel Index after a minimum follow-up of 6 weeks. RESULTS: A total of 152 (29%) patients presented with OF 4 fractures with a mean age of 76 years (range 41-97). The most common treatment was short-segment posterior stabilization (51%; hybrid stabilization in 36%). Mean follow up was 208 days (±131 days), mean ODI was 30 ± 21. Dorsoventral stabilized patients were younger compared to the other groups (P .602, Barthel: P > .252, EQ-5D 5L index value: P > .610, VAS-EQ-5D 5L: P = 1.000). The inpatient complication rate was 8% after conservative and 16% after surgical treatment. During follow-up period 14% of conservatively treated patients and 3% of surgical treated patients experienced neurological deficits. CONCLUSIONS: Conservative therapy of OF 4 injuries seems to be viable option in patients with only moderate symptoms. Hybrid stabilization was the dominant treatment strategy leading to promising clinical short-term results. Stand-alone cement augmentation seems to be a valid alternative in selected cases

Clinical Evaluation of the Osteoporotic Fracture Treatment Score (OF-Score): Results of the Evaluation of the Osteoporotic Fracture Classification, Treatment Score and Therapy Recommendations (EOFTT) Study.

STUDY DESIGN Multicenter prospective cohort study. OBJECTIVE The study aims to validate the recently developed OF score for treatment decisions in patients with osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures (OVCF). METHODS This is a prospective multicenter cohort study (EOFTT) in 17 spine centers. All consecutive patients with OVCF were included. The decision for conservative or surgical therapy was made by the treating physician independent of the OF score recommendation. Final decisions were compared to the recommendations given by the OF score. Outcome parameters were complications, Visual Analogue Scale, Oswestry Disability Questionnaire, Timed Up & Go test, EQ-5D 5 L, and Barthel Index. RESULTS In total, 518 patients (75.3% female, age 75 ± 10) years were included. 344 (66%) patients received surgical treatment. 71% of patients were treated following the score recommendations. For an OF score cut-off value of 6.5, the sensitivity and specificity to predict actual treatment were 60% and 68% (AUC .684, P < .001). During hospitalization overall 76 (14.7%) complications occurred. The mean follow-up rate and time were 92% and 5 ± 3.5 months, respectively. While all patients in the study cohort improved in clinical outcome parameters, the effect size was significantly less in the patients not treated in line with the OF score's recommendation. Eight (3%) patients needed revision surgery. CONCLUSIONS Patients treated according to the OF score's recommendations showed favorable short-term clinical results. Noncompliance with the score resulted in more pain and impaired functional outcome and quality of life. The OF score is a reliable and save tool to aid treatment decision in OVCF

Clinical Evaluation of the Osteoporotic Fracture Treatment Score (OF-Score): Results of the Evaluation of the Osteoporotic Fracture Classification, Treatment Score and Therapy Recommendations (EOFTT) Study

Study DesignMulticenter prospective cohort study.ObjectiveThe study aims to validate the recently developed OF score for treatment decisions in patients with osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures (OVCF).MethodsThis is a prospective multicenter cohort study (EOFTT) in 17 spine centers. All consecutive patients with OVCF were included. The decision for conservative or surgical therapy was made by the treating physician independent of the OF score recommendation. Final decisions were compared to the recommendations given by the OF score. Outcome parameters were complications, Visual Analogue Scale, Oswestry Disability Questionnaire, Timed Up & Go test, EQ-5D 5 L, and Barthel Index.ResultsIn total, 518 patients (75.3% female, age 75 ± 10) years were included. 344 (66%) patients received surgical treatment. 71% of patients were treated following the score recommendations. For an OF score cut-off value of 6.5, the sensitivity and specificity to predict actual treatment were 60% and 68% (AUC .684, P < .001). During hospitalization overall 76 (14.7%) complications occurred. The mean follow-up rate and time were 92% and 5 ± 3.5 months, respectively. While all patients in the study cohort improved in clinical outcome parameters, the effect size was significantly less in the patients not treated in line with the OF score’s recommendation. Eight (3%) patients needed revision surgery.ConclusionsPatients treated according to the OF score’s recommendations showed favorable short-term clinical results. Noncompliance with the score resulted in more pain and impaired functional outcome and quality of life. The OF score is a reliable and save tool to aid treatment decision in OVCF

Interobserver Reliability in the Classification of Thoracolumbar Fractures Using the AO Spine TL Injury Classification System Among 22 Clinical Experts in Spine Trauma Care

STUDY DESIGN: Reliability study utilizing 183 injury CT scans by 22 spine trauma experts with assessment of radiographic features, classification of injuries and treatment recommendations. OBJECTIVES: To assess the reliability of the AOSpine TL Injury Classification System (TLICS) including the categories within the classification and the M1 modifier. METHODS: Kappa and Intraclass correlation coefficients were produced. Associations of various imaging characteristics (comminution, PLC status) and treatment recommendations were analyzed through regression analysis. Multivariable logistic regression modeling was used for making predictive algorithms. RESULTS: Reliability of the AO Spine TLICS at differentiating A3 and A4 injuries (N = 71) (K = .466; 95% CI .458 – .474; P \u3c .001) demonstrated moderate agreement. Similarly, the average intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) amongst A3 and A4 injuries was excellent (ICC = .934; 95% CI .919 – .947; P \u3c .001) and the ICC between individual measures was moderate (ICC = .403; 95% CI .351 – .461; P \u3c .001). The overall agreement on the utilization of the M1 modifier amongst A3 and A4 injuries was fair (K = .161; 95% CI .151 – .171; P \u3c .001). The ICC for PLC status in A3 and A4 injuries averaged across all measures was excellent (ICC = .936; 95% CI .922 – .949; P \u3c .001). The M1 modifier suggests respondents are nearly 40% more confident that the PLC is injured amongst all injuries. The M1 modifier was employed at a higher frequency as injuries were classified higher in the classification system. CONCLUSIONS: The reliability of surgeons differentiating between A3 and A4 injuries in the AOSpine TLICS is substantial and the utilization of the M1 modifier occurs more frequently with higher grades in the system

Expert Opinion, Real-World Classification, and Decision-Making in Thoracolumbar Burst Fractures Without Neurologic Deficits?

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data. OBJECTIVES: To compare decision-making between an expert panel and real-world spine surgeons in thoracolumbar burst fractures (TLBFs) without neurological deficits and analyze which factors influence surgical decision-making. METHODS: This study is a sub-analysis of a prospective observational study in TL fractures. Twenty two experts were asked to review 183 CT scans and recommend treatment for each fracture. The expert recommendation was based on radiographic review. RESULTS: Overall agreement between the expert panel and real-world surgeons regarding surgery was 63.2%. In 36.8% of cases, the expert panel recommended surgery that was not performed in real-world scenarios. Conversely, in cases where the expert panel recommended non-surgical treatment, only 38.6% received non-surgical treatment, while 61.4% underwent surgery. A separate analysis of A3 and A4 fractures revealed that expert panel recommended surgery for 30% of A3 injuries and 68% of A4 injuries. However, 61% of patients with both A3 and A4 fractures received surgery in the real world. Multivariate analysis demonstrated that a 1% increase in certainty of PLC injury led to a 4% increase in surgery recommendation among the expert panel, while a .2% increase in the likelihood of receiving surgery in the real world. CONCLUSION: Surgical decision-making varied between the expert panel and real-world treating surgeons. Differences appear to be less evident in A3/A4 burst fractures making this specific group of fractures a real challenge independent of the level of expertise

OF-Pelvis classification of osteoporotic sacral and pelvic ring fractures

Objectives Osteoporotic fractures of the pelvis (OFP) are an increasing issue in orthopedics. Current classification systems (CS) are mostly CT-based and complex and offer only moderate to substantial inter-rater reliability (interRR) and intra-rater reliability (intraRR). MRI is thus gaining importance as a complement. This study aimed to develop a simple and reliable CT- and MRI-based CS for OFP. Methods A structured iterative procedure was conducted to reach a consensus among German-speaking spinal and pelvic trauma experts over 5 years. As a result, the proposed OF-Pelvis CS was developed. To assess its reliability, 28 experienced trauma and orthopedic surgeons categorized 25 anonymized cases using X-ray, CT, and MRI scans twice via online surveys. A period of 4 weeks separated the completion of the first from the second survey, and the cases were presented in an altered order. While 13 of the raters were also involved in developing the CS (developing raters (DR)), 15 user raters (UR) were not deeply involved in the development process. To assess the interRR of the OF-Pelvis categories, Fleiss’ kappa (κF) was calculated for each survey. The intraRR for both surveys was calculated for each rater using Kendall’s tau (τK). The presence of a modifier was calculated with κF for interRR and Cohen’s kappa (κC) for intraRR. Results The OF-Pelvis consists of five subgroups and three modifiers. Instability increases from subgroups 1 (OF1) to 5 (OF5) and by a given modifier. The three modifiers can be assigned alone or in combination. In both surveys, the interRR for subgroups was substantial: κF = 0.764 (Survey 1) and κF = 0.790 (Survey 2). The interRR of the DR and UR was nearly on par (κF Survey 1/Survey 2: DR 0.776/0.813; UR 0.748/0.766). The agreement for each of the five subgroups was also strong (κF min.–max. Survey 1/Survey 2: 0.708–0.827/0.747–0.852). The existence of at least one modifier was rated with substantial agreement (κF Survey 1/Survey 2: 0.646/0.629). The intraRR for subgroups showed almost perfect agreement (τK = 0.894, DR: τK = 0.901, UR: τK = 0.889). The modifier had an intraRR of κC = 0.684 (DR: κC = 0.723, UR: κC = 0.651), which is also considered substantial. Conclusion The OF-Pelvis is a reliable tool to categorize OFP with substantial interRR and almost perfect intraRR. The similar reliabilities between experienced DRs and URs demonstrate that the training status of the user is not important. However, it may be a reliable basis for an indication of the treatment score

OF-Pelvis classification of osteoporotic sacral and pelvic ring fractures

Objectives Osteoporotic fractures of the pelvis (OFP) are an increasing issue in orthopedics. Current classification systems (CS) are mostly CT-based and complex and offer only moderate to substantial inter-rater reliability (interRR) and intra-rater reliability (intraRR). MRI is thus gaining importance as a complement. This study aimed to develop a simple and reliable CT- and MRI-based CS for OFP. Methods A structured iterative procedure was conducted to reach a consensus among German-speaking spinal and pelvic trauma experts over 5 years. As a result, the proposed OF-Pelvis CS was developed. To assess its reliability, 28 experienced trauma and orthopedic surgeons categorized 25 anonymized cases using X-ray, CT, and MRI scans twice via online surveys. A period of 4 weeks separated the completion of the first from the second survey, and the cases were presented in an altered order. While 13 of the raters were also involved in developing the CS (developing raters (DR)), 15 user raters (UR) were not deeply involved in the development process. To assess the interRR of the OF-Pelvis categories, Fleiss’ kappa (κF) was calculated for each survey. The intraRR for both surveys was calculated for each rater using Kendall’s tau (τK). The presence of a modifier was calculated with κF for interRR and Cohen’s kappa (κC) for intraRR. Results The OF-Pelvis consists of five subgroups and three modifiers. Instability increases from subgroups 1 (OF1) to 5 (OF5) and by a given modifier. The three modifiers can be assigned alone or in combination. In both surveys, the interRR for subgroups was substantial: κF = 0.764 (Survey 1) and κF = 0.790 (Survey 2). The interRR of the DR and UR was nearly on par (κF Survey 1/Survey 2: DR 0.776/0.813; UR 0.748/0.766). The agreement for each of the five subgroups was also strong (κF min.–max. Survey 1/Survey 2: 0.708–0.827/0.747–0.852). The existence of at least one modifier was rated with substantial agreement (κF Survey 1/Survey 2: 0.646/0.629). The intraRR for subgroups showed almost perfect agreement (τK = 0.894, DR: τK = 0.901, UR: τK = 0.889). The modifier had an intraRR of κC = 0.684 (DR: κC = 0.723, UR: κC = 0.651), which is also considered substantial. Conclusion The OF-Pelvis is a reliable tool to categorize OFP with substantial interRR and almost perfect intraRR. The similar reliabilities between experienced DRs and URs demonstrate that the training status of the user is not important. However, it may be a reliable basis for an indication of the treatment score