How reliable is the distinction between thoracolumbar AO type A3 and A4 fractures? A systematic literature review.

PURPOSE: The AOSpine classification divides thoracolumbar burst fractures into A3 and A4 fractures; nevertheless, past research has found inconsistent interobserver reliability in detecting those two fracture patterns. This systematic analysis aims to synthesize data on the reliability of discriminating between A3 and A4 fractures. METHODS: We searched PubMed, Scopus, and the Web of Science for studies reporting the inter- and intra-observer reliability of detecting thoracolumbar AO A3 and A4 fractures using computed tomography (CT). The search spanned 2013 to 2023 and included both primarily reliability and observational comparative studies. We followed the PRISMA guidelines and used the modified COSMIN checklist to assess the studies' quality. Kappa coefficient (k) values were categorized according to Landis and Koch, from slight to excellent. RESULTS: Of the 396 identified studies, nine met the eligibility criteria; all were primarily reliability studies except one observational study. Interobserver k values for A3/A4 fractures varied widely among studies (0.19-86). The interobserver reliability was poor in two studies, fair in one study, moderate in four studies, and excellent in two studies. Only two studies reported intra-observer reliability, showing fair and excellent agreement. The included studies revealed significant heterogeneity in study design, sample size, and interpretation methods. CONCLUSION: Considerable variability exists in interobserver reliability for distinguishing A3 and A4 fractures from slight to excellent agreement. This variability might be attributed to methodological heterogeneity among studies, limitations of reliability analysis, or diagnostic pitfalls in differentiating between A3 and A4. Most observational studies comparing the outcome of A3 and A4 fractures do not report interobserver agreement, and this should be considered when interpreting their results.

The attainment of a patient acceptable symptom state in patients undergoing revision spine fusion.

INTRODUCTION: Revision lumbar fusion is most commonly due to nonunion, adjacent segment disease (ASD), or recurrent stenosis, but it is unclear if diagnosis affects patient outcomes. The primary aim of this study was to assess whether patients achieved the patient acceptable symptom state (PASS) or minimal clinically important difference (MCID) after revision lumbar fusion and assess whether this was influenced by the indication for revision. METHODS: We retrospectively identified all 1-3 level revision lumbar fusions at a single institution. Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) was collected at preoperative, three-month postoperative, and one-year postoperative time points. The MCID was calculated using a distribution-based method at each postoperative time point. PASS was set at the threshold of ≤ 22. RESULTS: We identified 197 patients: 56% with ASD, 28% with recurrent stenosis, and 15% with pseudarthrosis. The MCID for ODI was 10.05 and 10.23 at three months and one year, respectively. In total, 61% of patients with ASD, 52% of patients with nonunion, and 65% of patients with recurrent stenosis achieved our cohort-specific MCID at one year postoperatively with ASD (p = 0.78). At one year postoperatively, 33.8% of ASD patients, 47.8% of nonunion patients, and 37% of patients with recurrent stenosis achieved PASS without any difference between indication (p = 0.47). CONCLUSIONS: The majority of patients undergoing revision spine fusion experience significant postoperative improvements regardless of the indication for revision. However, a large proportion of these patients do not achieve the patient acceptable symptom state. While revision spine surgery may offer substantial benefits, these results underscore the need to manage patient expectations.

Relating preoperative MCS-12 to microdiscectomy outcomes.

PURPOSE: To determine the impact of poor mental health on patient-reported and surgical outcomes after microdiscectomy. METHODS: Patients ≥ 18 years who underwent a single-level lumbar microdiscectomy from 2014 to 2021 at a single academic institution were retrospectively identified. Patient-reported outcomes (PROMs) were collected at preoperative, three-month, and one-year postoperative time points. PROMs included the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Visual Analog Scale Back and Leg (VAS Back and VAS Leg, respectively), and the mental and physical component of the short form-12 survey (MCS and PCS). The minimum clinically important differences (MCID) were employed to compare scores for each PROM. Patients were categorized as having worse mental health or better mental health based on a MCS threshold of 50. RESULTS: Of 210 patients identified, 128 (61%) patients had a preoperative MCS score ≤ 50. There was no difference in 90-day surgical readmissions or spine reoperations within one year. At 3- and 12-month time points, both groups demonstrated improvements in all PROMs (p < 0.05). At three months postoperatively, patients with worse mental health had significantly lower PCS (42.1 vs. 46.4, p = 0.004) and higher ODI (20.5 vs. 13.3, p = 0.006) scores. Lower mental health scores were associated with lower 12-month PCS scores (43.3 vs. 48.8, p < 0.001), but greater improvements in 12-month ODI (- 28.36 vs. - 18.55, p = 0.040). CONCLUSION: While worse preoperative mental health was associated with lower baseline and postoperative PROMs, patients in both groups experienced similar improvements in PROMs. Rates of surgical readmissions and reoperations were similar among patients with varying preoperative mental health status.

Values derived from patient reported outcomes in spine surgery: a systematic review of the minimal clinically important difference, substantial clinical benefit, and patient acceptable symptom state.

PURPOSE: While patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) define value in spine surgery, several values such as minimal clinically important difference (MCID), substantial clinical benefit (SCB), and patient acceptable symptom state (PASS) help guide the interpretation of PROMs and identify thresholds of clinical significance. Significant variation exists in reported values and their calculation, so the primary objective of this study was to systematically review the spine surgery literature for metrics of clinical significance derived from PROMs. METHODS: We conducted a query of PubMed/MEDLINE and Scopus databases from inception to January 1, 2023, for studies that derived quantitative metrics (e.g., SCB, MCID, PASS) from PROMs in the setting of spine surgery with minimum 1-year follow-up. Details regarding the specific PROMs were collected including which PROM was measured, whether anchor- or distribution-based methods were utilized, the specific calculations, and the recommended value for a given PROM based on all evaluated calculations. RESULTS: Thirty-seven studies of 21,780 patients were included. The most commonly evaluated PROM-derived value was the MCID (n = 28), followed by PASS (n = 6) and SCB (n = 4). Twenty-one studies only utilized anchor-based calculations, 15 utilized both anchor-based and distribution-based methods, and one only utilized distribution-based calculations. The most commonly evaluated legacy PROMs were the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) (N = 11, MCID range 4-20) and visual analog scale back pain (N = 5, MCID range 0.5-4.6). All 10 studies that derived SCB or PASS utilized the receiver operating characteristic methods. Among the six studies deriving a PASS value, four only evaluated ODI, identifying PASS ranging from 5 to 22. CONCLUSION: While calculated measures of clinical significance such as MCID, PASS, and SCB exist, significant heterogeneity exists in the current literature. Current shortcomings include a wide variability of reported value thresholds across the literature, and limited applicability to more heterogenous patient populations than the targeted cohorts included in published investigations. Continued investigations that apply these methods to heterogenous, large-scale populations can help increase generalizability and validity of these measures. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.

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.

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.

The severity of preoperative anemia escalates risk of poor short-term outcomes after lumbar spine fusion.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate how preoperative anemia severity affects 90-day outcomes of spinal fusion surgery. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted on adult lumbar fusion patients at a tertiary medical center. Patients were classified by World Health Organization anemia severity definitions for comparisons. Multivariate regression models were created to control for confounding variables, for all primary outcomes of transfusion requirements, non-home discharge, readmissions, complications, and length of stay. RESULTS: A total of 2582 patients were included: 2.7% with moderate-severe anemia, 11.0% with mild anemia, and 86.3% without anemia. Moderate-severe patients had the longest hospital stay (5.03 days vs 4.14 and 3.59 days, p < 0.001) and highest risk of transfusion (52.2% vs 13.0% vs 2.69%, p < 0.001), non-home discharge (39.1% vs 27.8% vs 15.4%, p < 0.001), readmission (7.25% vs 5.99% vs 3.36%, p = 0.023), and complications (13.0% vs 9.51% vs 6.20%, p = 0.012). On multivariable logistic regression, both patients with mild and moderate-severe anemia had an increased risk of transfusion (OR: 37.3, p < 0.001; OR: 5.25, p < 0.001, respectively) and non-home discharge (OR: 2.00, p = 0.021; OR: 1.71, p = 0.001, respectively) compared to patients without anemia. Anemia severity was not independently associated with complications or 90-day readmission. On multivariable linear regression, mild anemia (ß: 0.37, p = 0.001) and moderate-severe anemia (ß: 1.07, p < 0.001) were independently associated with length of hospital stay. CONCLUSION: Patients with moderate-severe preoperative anemia are at increased risk for longer length of stay, transfusions, and non-home discharge. Improved optimization of preoperative anemia may significantly reduce healthcare utilization, and surgeons should consider these risks in preoperative planning. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.

The impact of cage positioning on lumbar lordosis and disc space restoration following minimally invasive lateral lumbar interbody fusion.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to evaluate patient and surgical factors that predict increased overall lumbar lordosis (LL) and segmental lordosis correction following a minimally invasive lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) procedure. METHODS: A retrospective review was conducted of all patients who underwent one- or two-level LLIF. Preoperative, initial postoperative, and 6-month postoperative measurements of LL, segmental lordosis, anterior disc height, and posterior disc height were collected from standing lateral radiographs for each patient. Cage placement was measured utilizing the center point ratio (CPR) on immediate postoperative radiographs. Spearman correlations were used to assess associations between cage lordosis and radiographic parameters. Multivariate linear regression was performed to assess independent predictors of outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 106 levels in 78 unique patients were included. Most procedures involved fusion of one level (n = 50, 64.1%), most commonly L3-4 (46.2%). Despite no differences in baseline segmental lordosis, patients with anteriorly or centrally placed cages experienced the greatest segmental lordosis correction immediately (mean anterior 4.81° and central 4.46° vs posterior 2.47°, p = 0.0315) and at 6 months postoperatively, and patients with anteriorly placed cages had greater overall lordosis correction postoperatively (mean 6.30°, p = 0.0338). At the 6-month follow-up, patients with anteriorly placed cages experienced the greatest increase in anterior disc height (mean anterior 6.24 mm vs posterior 3.69 mm, p = 0.0122). Cages placed more posteriorly increased the change in posterior disc height postoperatively (mean posterior 4.91 mm vs anterior 1.80 mm, p = 0.0001) and at 6 months (mean posterior 4.18 mm vs anterior 2.06 mm, p = 0.0255). There were no correlations between cage lordotic angle and outcomes. On multivariate regression, anterior cage placement predicted greater 6-month improvement in segmental lordosis, while posterior placement predicted greater 6-month improvement in posterior disc height. Percutaneous screw placement, cage lordotic angle, and cage height did not independently predict any radiographic outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: LLIF procedures reliably improve LL and increase intervertebral disc space. Anterior cage placement improves the lordosis angle greater than posterior placement, which better corrects sagittal alignment, but there is still a significant improvement in lordosis even with a posteriorly placed cage. Posterior cage placement provides greater restoration in posterior disc space height, maximizing indirect decompression, but even the anteriorly placed cages provided indirect decompression. Cage parameters including cage height, lordosis angle, and material do not impact radiographic improvement.

Preoperative epidural steroid injections do not increase the risk of postoperative infection in patients undergoing lumbar decompression or fusion: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: Epidural corticosteroid injections (ESI) are a mainstay of nonoperative treatment for patients with lumbar spine pathology. Recent literature evaluating infection risk following ESI after elective orthopedic surgery has produced conflicting evidence. Our primary objective was to review the literature and provide a larger meta-analysis analyzing the temporal effects of steroid injections on the risk of infection following lumbar spine surgery. METHODS: We conducted a query of the PubMed, Embase, and Scopus databases from inception until April 1, 2022 for studies evaluating the risk of infection in the setting of prior spinal steroid injections in patients undergoing lumbar spine decompression or fusion. Three meta-analyses were conducted, (1) comparing ESI within 30-days of surgery to control, (2) comparing ESI within 30-days to ESI between 1 and 3 months preoperatively, and (3) comparing any history of ESI prior to surgery to control. Tests of proportions were utilized for all comparisons between groups. Study heterogeneity was assessed via forest plots, and publication bias was assessed quantiatively via funnel plots and qualitatively with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. RESULTS: Nine total studies were included, five of which demonstrated an association between ESI and postoperative infection, while four found no association. Comparison of weighted means demonstrated no significant difference in infection rates between the 30-days ESI group and control group (2.67% vs. 1.69%, p = 0.144), 30-days ESI group and the > 30-days ESI group (2.34% vs. 1.66%, p = 0.1655), or total ESI group and the control group (1.99% vs. 1.70%, p = 0.544). Heterogeneity was low for all comparisons following sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSION: Current evidence does not implicate preoperative ESI in postoperative infection rates following lumbar fusion or decompression. Operative treatment should not be delayed due to preoperative steroid injections based on current evidence. There remains a paucity of high-quality data in the literature evaluating the impact of preoperative ESI on postoperative infection rates. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: II.

Overview of Traumatic Brain Injury in American Football Athletes.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this review is to provide a summary of the epidemiology, clinical presentation, pathophysiology, and treatment of traumatic brain injury in collision athletes, particularly those participating in American football. DATA SOURCES: A literature search was conducted using the PubMed/MEDLINE and Google Scholar databases for publications between 1990 and 2019. The following search phrases were used: "concussion," "professional athletes," "collision athletes," "mild traumatic brain injury," "severe traumatic brain injury," "management of concussion," "management of severe traumatic brain injury," and "chronic traumatic encephalopathy." Publications that did not present epidemiology, clinical presentation, pathophysiology, radiological evaluation, or management were omitted. Classic articles as per senior author recommendations were retrieved through reference review. RESULTS: The results of the literature review yielded 147 references: 21 articles discussing epidemiology, 16 discussing clinical presentation, 34 discussing etiology and pathophysiology, 10 discussing radiological evaluation, 34 articles for on-field management, and 32 articles for medical and surgical management. CONCLUSION: Traumatic brain injuries are frequent in professional collision athletes, and more severe injuries can have devastating and lasting consequences. Although sport-related concussions are well studied in professional American football, there is limited literature on the epidemiology and management of severe traumatic brain injuries. This article reviews the epidemiology, as well as the current practices in sideline evaluation, acute management, and surgical treatment of concussions and severe traumatic brain injury in professional collision athletes. Return-to-play decisions should be based on individual patient symptoms and recovery.

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.

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 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 > 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.

The value of CT and MRI in the classification and surgical decision-making among spine surgeons in thoracolumbar spinal injuries.

PURPOSE: Although imaging has a major role in evaluation and management of thoracolumbar spinal trauma by spine surgeons, the exact role of computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in addition to radiographs for fracture classification and surgical decision-making is unclear. METHODS: Spine surgeons (n = 41) from around the world classified 30 thoracolumbar fractures. The cases were presented in a three-step approach: first plain radiographs, followed by CT and MRI images. Surgeons were asked to classify according to the AOSpine classification system and choose management in each of the three steps. RESULTS: Surgeons correctly classified 43.4 % of fractures with plain radiographs alone; after, additionally, evaluating CT and MRI images, this percentage increased by further 18.2 and 2.2 %, respectively. AO type A fractures were identified in 51.7 % of fractures with radiographs, while the number of type B fractures increased after CT and MRI. The number of type C fractures diagnosed was constant across the three steps. Agreement between radiographs and CT was fair for A-type (k = 0.31), poor for B-type (k = 0.19), but it was excellent between CT and MRI (k > 0.87). CT and MRI had similar sensitivity in identifying fracture subtypes except that MRI had a higher sensitivity (56.5 %) for B2 fractures (p < 0.001). The need for surgical fixation was deemed present in 72 % based on radiographs alone and increased to 81.7 % with CT images (p < 0.0001). The assessment for need of surgery did not change after an MRI (p = 0.77). CONCLUSION: For accurate classification, radiographs alone were insufficient except for C-type injuries. CT is mandatory for accurately classifying thoracolumbar fractures. Though MRI did confer a modest gain in sensitivity in B2 injuries, the study does not support the need for routine MRI in patients for classification, assessing instability or need for surgery.

Cervical Spine Injuries in the Athlete.

Cervical spine injuries are common and range from relatively minor injuries, such as cervical muscle strains, to severe, life-threatening cervical fractures with spinal cord injuries. Although cervical spine injuries are most common in athletes who participate in contact and collision sports, such as rugby and American football, they also have been reported in athletes who participate in noncontact sports, such as baseball, gymnastics, and diving. Cervical spine injuries in athletes are not necessarily the result of substantial spine trauma; some athletes have chronic conditions, such as congenital stenosis, that increase their risk for a serious cervical spine injury after even minor trauma. Therefore, physicians who cover athletic events must have a thorough knowledge of cervical spine injures and the most appropriate methods for managing them. Although cervical spine injuries can be career-ending injuries, athletes often are able to return to play after appropriate treatment if the potential for substantial reinjury is minimized.

The role of intense athletic activity on structural lumbar abnormalities in adolescent patients with symptomatic low back pain.

PURPOSE: To determine if adolescent athletics increases the risk of structural abnormalities in the lumbar spine. METHODS: A retrospective review of patients (ages 10-18) between 2004 and 2012 was performed. Pediatric patients with symptomatic low back pain, a lumbar spine MRI, and reported weekly athletic activity were included. Patients were stratified to an "athlete" and "non-athlete" group. Lumbar magnetic resonance and plain radiographic imaging was randomized, blinded, and evaluated by two authors for a Pfirrmann grade, herniated disc, and/or pars fracture. RESULTS: A total of 114 patients met the inclusion criteria and were stratified into 66 athletes and 48 non-athletes. Athletes were more likely to have abnormal findings compared to non-athletes (67 vs. 40 %, respectively, p = 0.01). Specifically, the prevalence of a spondylolysis with or without a slip was higher in athletes vs. non-athletes (32 vs. 2 %, respectively, p = 0.0003); however, there was no difference in the average Pfirrmann grade (1.19 vs. 1.14, p = 0.41), percentage of patients with at least one degenerative disc (39 vs. 31 %, p = 0.41), or disc herniation (27 vs. 33 %, p = 0.43). Body mass index, smoking history, and pelvic incidence (51.5° vs. 48.7°, respectively, p = 0.41) were similar between the groups. CONCLUSION: Adolescents with low back pain have a higher-than-expected prevalence of structural pathology regardless of athletic activity. Independent of pelvic incidence, adolescent athletes with low back pain had a higher prevalence of spondylolysis compared to adolescent non-athletes with back pain, but there was no difference in associated disc degenerative changes or herniation.

Reliability analysis of the AOSpine thoracolumbar spine injury classification system by a worldwide group of naïve spinal surgeons.

PURPOSE: The aims of this study were (1) to demonstrate the AOSpine thoracolumbar spine injury classification system can be reliably applied by an international group of surgeons and (2) to delineate those injury types which are difficult for spine surgeons to classify reliably. METHODS: A previously described classification system of thoracolumbar injuries which consists of a morphologic classification of the fracture, a grading system for the neurologic status and relevant patient-specific modifiers was applied to 25 cases by 100 spinal surgeons from across the world twice independently, in grading sessions 1 month apart. The results were analyzed for classification reliability using the Kappa coefficient (κ). RESULTS: The overall Kappa coefficient for all cases was 0.56, which represents moderate reliability. Kappa values describing interobserver agreement were 0.80 for type A injuries, 0.68 for type B injuries and 0.72 for type C injuries, all representing substantial reliability. The lowest level of agreement for specific subtypes was for fracture subtype A4 (Kappa = 0.19). Intraobserver analysis demonstrated overall average Kappa statistic for subtype grading of 0.68 also representing substantial reproducibility. CONCLUSION: In a worldwide sample of spinal surgeons without previous exposure to the recently described AOSpine Thoracolumbar Spine Injury Classification System, we demonstrated moderate interobserver and substantial intraobserver reliability. These results suggest that most spine surgeons can reliably apply this system to spine trauma patients as or more reliably than previously described systems.

AOSpine subaxial cervical spine injury classification system.

PURPOSE: This project describes a morphology-based subaxial cervical spine traumatic injury classification system. Using the same approach as the thoracolumbar system, the goal was to develop a comprehensive yet simple classification system with high intra- and interobserver reliability to be used for clinical and research purposes. METHODS: A subaxial cervical spine injury classification system was developed using a consensus process among clinical experts. All investigators were required to successfully grade 10 cases to demonstrate comprehension of the system before grading 30 additional cases on two occasions, 1 month apart. Kappa coefficients (κ) were calculated for intraobserver and interobserver reliability. RESULTS: The classification system is based on three injury morphology types similar to the TL system: compression injuries (A), tension band injuries (B), and translational injuries (C), with additional descriptions for facet injuries, as well as patient-specific modifiers and neurologic status. Intraobserver and interobserver reliability was substantial for all injury subtypes (κ = 0.75 and 0.64, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: The AOSpine subaxial cervical spine injury classification system demonstrated substantial reliability in this initial assessment, and could be a valuable tool for communication, patient care and for research purposes.

The surgical algorithm for the AOSpine thoracolumbar spine injury classification system.

PURPOSE: The goal of the current study is to establish a surgical algorithm to accompany the AOSpine thoracolumbar spine injury classification system. METHODS: A survey was sent to AOSpine members from the six AO regions of the world, and surgeons were asked if a patient should undergo an initial trial of conservative management or if surgical management was warranted. The survey consisted of controversial injury patterns. Using the results of the survey, a surgical algorithm was developed. RESULTS: The AOSpine Trauma Knowledge forum defined that the injuries in which less than 30% of surgeons would recommend surgical intervention should undergo a trial of non-operative care, and injuries in which 70% of surgeons would recommend surgery should undergo surgical intervention. Using these thresholds, it was determined that injuries with a thoracolumbar AOSpine injury score (TL AOSIS) of three or less should undergo a trial of conservative treatment, and injuries with a TL AOSIS of more than five should undergo surgical intervention. Operative or non-operative treatment is acceptable for injuries with a TL AOSIS of four or five. CONCLUSION: The current algorithm uses a meaningful injury classification and worldwide surgeon input to determine the initial treatment recommendation for thoracolumbar injuries. This allows for a globally accepted surgical algorithm for the treatment of thoracolumbar trauma.

The effect of vertebral fracture on the early neurologic recovery in patients with central cord syndrome.

PURPOSE: To compare early changes in the ASIA Motor Score (AMS) between patients with central cord syndrome (CCS) from an acute fracture to patients without a fracture. METHODS: Patients with CCS were identified and stratified based on the presence of a fracture. The AMS through the first week of the patients' hospitalization was obtained. Initial injury severity as well as early neurologic recovery was measured using the AMS. Analysis of variance was performed to determine if age, gender, rectal tone at presentation, congenital stenosis, or surgery within 24 h significantly effected the change in AMS. RESULTS: A strong trend (p = 0.0504) towards a more severe initial neurologic injury in patients with a fracture (AMS 59.7) than in patients without a fracture (AMS 70.2) was identified. However, in the week after injury, patients with a fracture had an improvement in their neurologic function (ΔAMS +4.8) while patients without a fracture demonstrated neurologic decline (ΔAMS -5.9). The change in AMS between patients with and without a fracture was nearly significant (p = 0.06). CONCLUSION: Patients with central cord syndrome present with similar symptoms, but injuries with and without a fracture may be associated with a different early neurologic recovery. Patients with a fracture have a more severe injury at initial presentation, but tend to have neurologic improvement in the first week; conversely patients without a fracture have a less severe initial neurologic injury, but tend to have a slight decline in neurologic function over the first week.

Redesigning Health Care Organizations: The Influence of Government Policy and Methods of Payment.

Over the last 5 years, there has been a growing trend toward consolidation in the health care field. As reimbursement moves from a fee-for-service model to a value-based model, there will be continued pressure on physicians to either be a hospital employee or to be in a large multidisciplinary practice. This is largely due to the Accountable Care Act, which directs payers to utilize population-based cost analyses, rather than an individual patient-based analysis. To succeed in this environment, practices will have to break down traditional organizational barriers to create evidence-based algorithms for the treatment of individual diagnoses from the initial onset of symptoms until the resolution of symptoms.