Surgical treatment of traumatic fractures of the thoracic and lumbar spine: A systematic review.

Introduction: The treatment of traumatic thoracic and lumbar spine fractures remains controversial. To date no consensus exists on the correct choice of surgical approach and technique. Research question: to provide a comprehensive up-to-date overview of the available different surgical methods and their quantified outcomes. Methods: PubMed and EMBASE were searched between 2001 and 2020 using the term 'spinal fractures'. Inclusion criteria were: adults, ≥10 cases, ≥12 months follow-up, thoracic or lumbar fractures, and surgery <3 weeks of trauma. Studies were categorized per surgical technique: Posterior open (PO), posterior percutaneous (PP), stand-alone vertebral body augmentation (SA), anterior scopic (AS), anterior open (AO), posterior percutaneous and anterior open (PPAO), posterior percutaneous and anterior scopic (PPAS), posterior open and anterior open (POAO) and posterior open and anterior scopic (POAS). The PO group was used as a reference group. Results: After duplicate removal 6042 articles were identified. A total of 102 articles were Included, in which 137 separate surgical technique cohorts were described: PO (n = 75), PP, (n = 39), SA (n = 12), AO (n = 5), PPAO (n = 1), PPAS (n = 1), POAO (n = 2) and POAS (n = 2). Discussion and conclusion: For type A3/A4 burst fractures, without severe neurological deficit, posterior percutaneous (PP) technique seems the safest and most feasible option in the past two decades. If needed, PP can be combined with anterior augmentation to prevent secondary kyphosis. Furthermore, posterior open (PO) technique is feasible in almost all types of fractures. Also, this technique can provide for an additional posterior decompression or fusion. Overall, no neurologic deterioration was reported following surgical intervention.

Validation of the AO Spine CROST (Clinician Reported Outcome Spine Trauma) in the clinical setting.

PURPOSE: To evaluate feasibility, internal consistency, inter-rater reliability, and prospective validity of AO Spine CROST (Clinician Reported Outcome Spine Trauma) in the clinical setting. METHODS: Patients were included from four trauma centers. Two surgeons with substantial amount of experience in spine trauma care were included from each center. Two separate questionnaires were administered at baseline, 6-months and 1-year: one to surgeons (mainly CROST) and another to patients (AO Spine PROST-Patient Reported Outcome Spine Trauma). Descriptive statistics were used to analyze patient characteristics and feasibility, Cronbach's α for internal consistency. Inter-rater reliability through exact agreement, Kappa statistics and Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC). Prospective analysis, and relationships between CROST and PROST were explored through descriptive statistics and Spearman correlations. RESULTS: In total, 92 patients were included. CROST showed excellent feasibility results. Internal consistency (α = 0.58-0.70) and reliability (ICC = 0.52 and 0.55) were moderate. Mean total scores between surgeons only differed 0.2-0.9 with exact agreement 48.9-57.6%. Exact agreement per CROST item showed good results (73.9-98.9%). Kappa statistics revealed moderate agreement for most CROST items. In the prospective analysis a trend was only seen when no concerns at all were expressed by the surgeon (CROST = 0), and moderate to strong positive Spearman correlations were found between CROST at baseline and the scores at follow-up (rs = 0.41-0.64). Comparing the CROST with PROST showed no specific association, nor any Spearman correlations (rs = -0.33-0.07). CONCLUSIONS: The AO Spine CROST showed moderate validity in a true clinical setting including patients from the daily clinical practice.

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.

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.

Correlation between neurologic status and spinal injury at the Cervicothoracic Junction.

BACKGROUND: With limited studies on spinal injuries occurring at the cervicothoracic junction, there is currently a knowledge gap regarding the correlation between morphology of injury and neurology and whether surgery provides a favorable neurological outcome. The primary objective was to determine whether the neurological deficit correlated with the severity of injury at this region of the spine. METHODS: All patients with injuries at the cervicothoracic junction from December 2015 to December 2020 in a government trauma hospital were included. Patient demographics, characteristics of the injury, neurological score, imaging findings, surgery details and neurological outcomes were analyzed. All patients had a minimum follow up of 2 years. RESULTS: Of the total 30 patients, 23 were male and 7 female with mean age 42.4 years. 90% had fall injuries with 76.7% sustaining AO type C injury and 10% with AO B2 injury.73.4% had injury at C6-C7 level followed by 13.3% , C7-T1. Only 16.7% patients presented with intact neurology. Plain x-rays failed to detect cervicothoracic junction, injuries in 63.3% patients. Posterior stabilization was performed in 56.7%. Neurological improvement was observed in 9 patients. CONCLUSIONS: Though cervicothoracic junction injuries are uncommon, they are highly unstable injuries and difficult to diagnose by plain x-rays. These injuries also result in profound neurological deficit. Surgical stabilization of these injuries should be considered for a favorable neurological and functional outcome.

Applicability of the AO Spine Patient Reported Outcome Spine Trauma (PROST) in people with motor-complete spinal cord injury: a cognitive interview study.

STUDY DESIGN: This is a cognitive interview study. OBJECTIVES: To examine the applicability of the Patient Reported Outcome Spine Trauma (AO Spine PROST) in people with motor-complete traumatic or non-traumatic spinal cord injury (SCI). SETTING: Two rehabilitation centers in The Netherlands. METHOD: Semi-structured cognitive interviews were conducted with 29 adults with a motor-complete SCI (AISA Impairment Scale A or B). Participants were asked to complete the AO Spine PROST and four additional evaluation questions rated on a 1-5-point Likert scale (5 most positive), while verbalizing their thoughts about their answers. Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed. Codes were identified and linked to a coding scheme. Qualitative data were used to interpret the quantitative results. RESULTS: Almost three-quarters of the participants (71.4%) had a traumatic SCI. Positive ratings of the measure were obtained regards comprehensibility (mean 4.0), non-offensiveness (4.6), relevance (4.2), and completeness (3.6). A question about the emotional impact of SCI was indicated to be missing. How using an assistive device should weigh in the score was a recurring topic. The use of multiple examples per item raised uncertainty, mostly solved by averaging their score. Some individuals indicated that the possibility to express even better function compared to before the onset of injury would be valuable. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the AO Spine PROST appears applicable in adults with a motor-complete traumatic or non-traumatic SCI. Recommendations are made for improvement in instructions, terminology, and examples used in the tool. This study contributes to the further development of the AO Spine PROST in spine trauma care and research.

Long-Term Reliability and Validity of the AO Spine PROST (Patient-Reported Outcome Spine Trauma).

STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional validation study. OBJECTIVE: The aim was to validate the AO Spine Patient-Reported Outcome Spine Trauma (PROST) at a minimum of 12 months posttrauma and to evaluate patient characteristics, types of spine fractures, and treatment strategies as determinants of AO Spine PROST scores. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The reliability and validity of the AO Spine PROST as a measure of health-related quality of life for more than 12 months after onset of spine trauma is unclear. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with a traumatic spine injury were recruited from a level-1 trauma center. They were asked to complete the AO Spine PROST, EuroQoL 5D-5L (EQ-5D-5L), and either Oswestry disability index (ODI) or neck disability index (NDI) for concurrent validity. Internal consistency was assessed by calculating the Cronbach α and item-total correlation coefficients. Test-retest reliability was evaluated using intraclass correlation coefficients. Spearman correlation tests were performed for the AO Spine PROST in correlation with the EQ-5D-5L, and either ODI or NDI. Determinants for AO Spine PROST score were analyzed using multivariate regression models. RESULTS: A total of 175 patients participated in the cross-sectional arm and 49 in the test-retest arm of the study. Median duration of follow-up was 94.5 months. No floor or ceiling effects were seen. Internal consistency was excellent (α=0.98, item-total correlation coefficient: 0.73-0.91) as well as test-retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient=0.81). Satisfactory correlations were seen for the EQ-5D-5L (0.76; P <0.001), ODI (0.69; P <0.001), and NDI (0.68; P <0.001) with the AO Spine PROST. Multivariate linear regression models showed that having ≥1 comorbidities, duration of return to work within the range of 7 to 43 months and no return to work were significant independent determinants for a worse AO Spine PROST score. CONCLUSIONS: Very good long-term reliability and validity results were found for the AO Spine PROST.

Reliability and Validity of the Adapted Nepali Version of the AO Spine Patient Reported Outcome Spine Trauma.

BACKGROUND: The AO Spine Patient Reported Outcome Spine Trauma has been validated in English and Dutch language, however, there is an absence of a translated and validated version in Nepali language. The purpose of this study was to translate the AO Spine Patient Reported Outcome Spine Trauma into Nepali and adapt cross-culturally as outlined by established guidelines, as well as test its psychometric properties among Nepali speaking spine trauma patients. METHODS: Patients were recruited from two Nepali centers as a cross-sectional multicenter validation study. The English version of AO Spine Patient Reported Outcome Spine Trauma was translated and cross-culturally adapted into Nepali language following international guidelines. Next to AO Spine Patient Reported Outcome Spine Trauma also the EQ-5D-3L was filled out by the patients for concurrent validity. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze the patient characteristics. Assessment of measurement properties included content validity (floor and ceiling effects), internal consistency (Cronbach's ? and item total-correlation coefficients) and test-retest reliability by the Bland-Altman plot and Intraclass Correlation Coefficients. Spearman correlation tests were performed within the items and in correlation to EQ-5D-3L. RESULTS: Sixty two spine trauma patients completed the instrument with a mean time of 6.8 minutes. The translated version showed good content validity with no floor and ceiling effects. The internal consistency was excellent with a Cronbach's ? of 0.95. The Spearman correlations within the AO Spine Patient Reported Outcome Spine Trauma items were 0.07 - 0.65 and the test-retest analysis showed excellent results with an Intraclass Correlation Coefficients value of 0.95 (CI 0.93 - 0.97). Inverse correlation was observed between Nepali AO Spine PROST with EQ-5D-3L components. CONCLUSIONS: The Nepali version of AO Spine Patient Reported Outcome Spine Trauma demonstrated excellent validity and reliability results for measuring patient-reported outcomes of spine trauma patients.

Good long-term outcomes of the hip Chiari osteotomy in adolescents and adults with hip dysplasia: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The Chiari osteotomy was a regular treatment for developmental hip dysplasia before it became mostly reserved as a salvage therapy. However, the long-term survival of the Chiari osteotomy has not been systematically investigated. We investigated the survival time of the Chiari osteotomy until conversion to total hip arthroplasty (THA) in patients with primary hip dysplasia, and factors which correlated with survival, complications, and the improvement measured in radiographic parameters. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Studies were included when describing patients (> 16 years) with primary hip dysplasia treated with a Chiari osteotomy procedure with 8 years' follow-up. Data on patient characteristics, indications, complications, radiographic parameters, and survival time (endpoint: conversion to THA) were extracted. RESULTS: 8 studies were included. The average postoperative center-edge angle, acetabular head index, and Sharp angle were generally restored within the target range. 3 studies reported Kaplan-Meier survival rates varying from 96% at 10 years to 72% at 20 years' follow-up. Negative survival factors were high age at intervention and pre-existing advanced preoperative osteoarthritis. Moreover, reported complications ranged between 0% and 28.3 %. INTERPRETATION: The Chiari osteotomy has high reported survival rates and is capable of restoring radiographic hip parameters to healthy values. When carefully selected by young age, and a low osteoarthritis score, patients benefit from the Chiari osteotomy with satisfactory survival rates. The position of the Chiari osteotomy in relation to the periacetabular osteotomies should be further (re-)explored.

Reliability, validity and responsiveness of the Dutch version of the AOSpine PROST (Patient Reported Outcome Spine Trauma).

PURPOSE: To validate the Dutch version of AOSpine PROST (Patient Reported Outcome Spine Trauma). METHODS: Patients were recruited from two level-1 trauma centers from the Netherlands. Next to the AOSpine PROST, patients also filled out SF-36 for concurrent validity. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze the characteristics. Content validity was assessed by evaluating the number of inapplicable or missing questions. Also floor and ceiling effects were analyzed. Internal consistency was assessed by calculating Cronbach's α and item-total correlation coefficients (itcc). Spearman correlation tests were performed within AOSpine PROST items and in correlation with SF-36. Test-retest reliability was analyzed using Intraclass Correlation Coefficients (ICC). Responsiveness was assessed by calculating effect sizes (ES) and standardized response mean (SRM). Factor analysis was performed to explore any dimensions within AOSpine PROST. RESULTS: Out of 179 enrolled patients, 163 (91.1%) were included. Good results were obtained for content validity. No floor or ceiling effects were seen. Internal consistency was excellent (Cronbach's α = 0.96, itcc 0.50-0.86), with also good Spearman correlations (0.25-0.79). Compared to SF-36, the strongest correlation was seen for physical functioning (0.79; p < .001). Also test-retest reliability was excellent (ICC = 0.92). Concerning responsiveness analysis, very good results were seen with ES = 1.81 and SRM = 2.03 (p < 0.001). Factor analysis revealed two possible dimensions (Eigenvalues > 1), explaining 65.4% of variance. CONCLUSIONS: Very satisfactory results were obtained for reliability, validity and responsiveness of the Dutch version of AOSpine PROST. Treating surgeons are encouraged to use this novel and validated tool in clinical setting and research to contribute to evidence-based and patient-centered care.

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.

Reliability and Validity of the English Version of the AOSpine PROST (Patient Reported Outcome Spine Trauma).

STUDY DESIGN: Multicenter validation study. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to translate and adapt the AOSpine PROST (Patient Reported Outcome Spine Trauma) into English, and test its psychometric properties among North-American spine trauma patients. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: In the absence of an outcome instrument specifically designed and validated for traumatic spinal column injury patients, it is difficult to measure the effect size of various treatment options. The AOSpine Knowledge Forum Trauma initiated a project and developed the AOSpine PROST consisting of 19 items. METHODS: Patients were recruited from two level-1 North-American trauma centers. For concurrent validity, next to AOSpine PROST also 36-item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36) was filled out by patients. Patient characteristics were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Floor and ceiling effects as well as the number of inapplicable and missing questions were analyzed for content validity. Cronbach α and item-total correlation coefficients (ITCCs) were calculated for internal consistency. Spearman correlation tests were performed within AOSpine PROST items and in correlation to SF-36. Test-retest reliability was assessed using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs). Factor analysis was performed to explore any dimensions within AOSpine PROST. RESULTS: The AOSpine PROST was translated adapted into English using established guidelines. Of 196 enrolled patients, 162 (82.7%) met the inclusion criteria and provided sufficient data. Content validity showed good results, and no floor and ceiling effects were seen. The internal consistency was excellent (Cronbach α = 0.97; ITCC 0.50-0.90) as well as test-retest reliability (ICC = 0.97). Spearman correlations were good (0.29-0.85). The strongest correlations of AOSpine PROST with SF-36 were seen with the physical components (0.69-0.82; P < 0.001). Factor analysis revealed two possible dimensions (Eigen values >1), explaining 75.7% of variance. CONCLUSION: The English version of AOSpine PROST showed very good validity and reliability. It is considered as a valuable tool, and has the potential to contribute to the reduction of ongoing controversies in spine trauma care. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2.

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.

Injuries related to bicycle accidents: an epidemiological study in The Netherlands.

BACKGROUND: This study aims to analyze the incidence and outcomes of bicycle-related injuries in hospitalized patients in The Netherlands. METHODS: Bicycle accidents resulting in hospitalization in a level-I trauma center in The Netherlands between 2007 and 2017 were retrospectively identified. We subcategorized data of patients involved in a regular bicycle, race bike, off-road bike or e-bike accident. The primary outcomes were mortality rate and incidence of multitrauma. Secondary outcomes were differences between bicycle subcategories. Independent risk factors were identified using multivariable logistic regression. All variables with a p value < 0.20 in univariable analysis were entered in multivariable analysis. RESULTS: We identified 1986 patients. The mortality rate after emergency room admission was 5.7%, and 41.0% were multitraumas. A higher age, multitrauma and cerebral haemorrhages were independent risk factors for in hospital mortality. Independent risk factors found for multitrauma were a higher age, two-sided trauma, e-bike accidents and cerebral haemorrhage. CONCLUSION: Bicycle accidents resulting in hospitalization have a high mortality rate. Furthermore, a high incidence of multitrauma, fractures and cerebral haemorrhages were found. Considering the increasing incidence of bicycle accident victims needing hospital admission, new and more efficient prevention strategies are essential.

The role of emergency medical service providers in the decision-making process of prehospital trauma triage.

PURPOSE: Severely injured patients should be treated at higher-level trauma centres, to improve chances of survival and avert life-long disabilities. Emergency medical service (EMS) providers must try to determine injury severity on-scene, using a prehospital trauma triage protocol, and decide the most appropriate type of trauma centre. The objective of this study is to investigate the role of EMS provider judgment in the prehospital triage process of trauma patients, by analysing the compliance rate to the protocol and administering a questionnaire among EMS providers. METHODS: All trauma patients transported to a trauma centre in two different regions of the Netherlands were analysed. Compliance rate was based on the number of patients meeting the triage criteria and transported to the corresponding level trauma centre. The questionnaire was administered among EMS providers. Descriptive statistics were used to analyse the data. RESULTS: For adult patients, the compliance rate to the level I criteria of the triage protocol was 72% in Central Netherlands and 42% in Brabant. For paediatric patients, this was 63% and 38% in Central Netherlands and Brabant, respectively. The judgment on injury severity was mostly based on the injury-type criteria. Additionally, the distance to a level I trauma centre influenced the decision for destination facility in the Brabant region. CONCLUSION: The compliance rate varied between regions. Improvement of prehospital trauma triage depends on the accuracy of the protocol and compliance rate. A new protocol, including EMS provider judgment, might be the key to improvement in the prehospital trauma triage quality.

Spine Trauma-What Are the Current Controversies?

Although less common than other musculoskeletal injuries, spinal trauma may lead to significantly more disability and costs. During the last 2 decades there was substantial improvement in our understanding of the basic patterns of spinal fractures leading to more reliable classification and injury severity assessment systems but also rapid developments in surgical techniques. Despite these advancements, there remain unresolved issues concerning the management of these injuries. At this moment there is persistent controversy within the spinal trauma community, which can be grouped under 6 headings. First of all there is still no unanimity on the role and timing of medical and surgical interventions for patients with associated neurologic injury. The same is also true for type and timing of surgical intervention in multiply injured patients. In some common injury types like odontoid fractures and burst type (A3-A4) fractures in thoracolumbar spine, there is wide variation in practice between operative versus nonoperative management without clear reasons. Also, the role of different surgical approaches and techniques in certain injury types are not clarified yet. Methods of nonoperative management and care of elderly patients with concurrent complex disorders are also areas where there is no consensus. In this overview article the main reasons for these controversies are reviewed and the possible ways for resolutions are discussed.

The Need of Validated Disease-Specific Outcome Instruments for Spine Trauma.

This article focuses on patient-reported and clinician-reported outcome measures in spine trauma care. The measurement of the quality of care and functional and health-related quality of life outcomes of spine trauma patients has become increasingly important. However, no outcome instrument is specifically designed, validated, or universally adapted for this specific patient population. Issues specific to spinal trauma patients may not be adequately addressed by the instruments that are currently used in the literature and the daily clinical practice. The AOSpine Knowledge Forum Trauma initiated a project to develop and validate such instruments for spine trauma patients. To reflect the different perspectives of patients and the treating surgeons, 2 separate tools are being developed: the Patient Reported Outcome Spine Trauma (AOSpine PROST) and Clinician Reported Outcome Spine Trauma (AOSpine CROST). These tools hold promise, as useful instruments to measure the outcomes of spine trauma patients with and without neurological deficit, making it more feasible for clinical use as well. Treating surgeons around the world are encouraged to use the AOSpine PROST and AOSpine CROST 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. This contributes to a reduction of the ongoing controversies and providing the best treatments for our patients.

Osteoporotic Thoracolumbar Fractures-How Are They Different?-Classification and Treatment Algorithm.

Osteoporotic vertebral fractures constitute at least 50% of the osteoporotic fractures that happen worldwide. Occurrence of osteoporotic fractures make the elderly patient susceptible for further fractures and increases the morbidity due to kyphosis and pain; the mortality risk is also increased in these patients. Most fractures occur in the thoracic and thoracolumbar region and are often stable. Different descriptive and prognostic classification systems have been described, but none are universally accepted. Radiographs, computed tomography, and magnetic resonance imaging are useful in imaging the fracture and evaluating the bone density. In acute stages, the fractures are well treated with conservative measures including short bed rest, analgesics, bracing, and exercises. Although most fractures heal well, up to 30% of fractures can develop painful nonunion, progressive kyphosis, and neurological deficit. For patients who develop severe pain not responding to nonoperative measures and painful nonunion, percutaneous cement augmentation procedures including vertebroplasty or kyphoplasty have been suggested. For fractures with severe collapse and that lead to neurological deficit and increasing kyphosis, instrumented stabilization is advised. Prevention and management of osteoporosis is the key element in the management of osteoporotic fractures in the elderly. Guidelines for essential adequate dietary and supplemental calcium and vitamin D, and antiosteoporotic medications have been described.