Validation of the arabic version of the EuroQol-5-dimension 5-level (EQ-5D-5 L) in patients with spinal degenerative diseases.

OBJECTIVE: This study aims to test the reliability and validity of the translated Arabic version of EQ-5D-5 L. METHODS: The study was conducted on 100 patients operated upon for degenerative spine diseases coming for follow up in the outpatient clinic of a Tertiary care hospital. Test-retest reliability was assessed by completing the self-administered tool in two follow up visits, one week apart, by 50 patients. Internal consistency was evaluated by Cronbach's alpha. Intra-class correlation coefficients and kappa statistics were performed to test for the agreement between the two ratings. Criterion validity was assessed by comparing the responses of 100 patients to the EQ-5D-5 L with scores of two validated questionnaires; the Arabic version of the Oswestry disability index and the Arabic version of short-form health survey-36. The construct validity was assessed using known-groups comparison to test for hypothesized differences concerning demographic and clinical variables. RESULTS: The Arabic version of EQ-5D-5 L questionnaire had a high reliability with high observed internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha = 0.816, CI: 0.719-0.886). It showed strong temporal stability, with ICCs of the EQ-5D-5 L score, index and EQ-visual analog scale (EQ-VAS) of 0.852, 0.801, and 0.839 respectively. Agreement by kappa was moderate; above 0.4, for all domains, except for the "Usual activities" domain. EQ-5D-5 L domains, VAS and index had moderate to strong significant correlations with SF-36 and ODI subscales and total scores in the correct direction indicating a good criterion validity of the instrument. CONCLUSION: The Arabic version of EQ-5D-5 L is reliable and valid for assessment of HRQoL of Arabic speaking patients.

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.

COVID-19 and the rise of virtual medicine in spine surgery: a worldwide study.

PURPOSE: The COVID-19 pandemic forced many surgeons to adopt "virtual medicine" practices, defined as telehealth services for patient care and online platforms for continuing medical education. The purpose of this study was to assess spine surgeon reliance on virtual medicine during the pandemic and to discuss the future of virtual medicine in spine surgery. METHODS: A comprehensive survey addressing demographic data and virtual medicine practices was distributed to spine surgeons worldwide between March 27, 2020, and April 4, 2020. RESULTS: 902 spine surgeons representing seven global regions responded. 35.6% of surgeons were identified as "high telehealth users," conducting more than half of clinic visits virtually. Predictors of high telehealth utilization included working in an academic practice (OR = 1.68, p = 0.0015) and practicing in Europe/North America (OR 3.42, p < 0.0001). 80.1% of all surgeons were interested in online education. Dedicating more than 25% of one's practice to teaching (OR = 1.89, p = 0.037) predicted increased interest in online education. 26.2% of respondents were identified as "virtual medicine surgeons," defined as surgeons with both high telehealth usage and increased interest in online education. Living in Europe/North America and practicing in an academic practice increased odds of being a virtual medicine surgeon by 2.28 (p = 0.002) and 1.15 (p = 0.0082), respectively. 93.8% of surgeons reported interest in a centralized platform facilitating surgeon-to-surgeon communication. CONCLUSION: COVID-19 has changed spine surgery by triggering rapid adoption of virtual medicine practices. The demonstrated global interest in virtual medicine suggests that it may become part of the "new normal" for surgeons in the post-pandemic era.

Telemedicine in research and training: spine surgeon perspectives and practices worldwide.

PURPOSE: To utilize a global survey to elucidate spine surgeons' perspectives towards research and resident education within telemedicine. METHODS: A cross-sectional, anonymous email survey was circulated to the members of AO Spine, an international organization consisting of spine surgeons from around the world. Questions were selected and revised using a Delphi approach. A major portion of the final survey queried participants on experiences with telemedicine in training, the utility of telemedicine for research, and the efficacy of telemedicine as a teaching tool. Responses were compared by region. RESULTS: A total of 485 surgeons completed the survey between May 15, 2020 and May 31, 2020. Though most work regularly with trainees (83.3%) and 81.8% agreed that telemedicine should be incorporated into clinical education, 61.7% of respondents stated that trainees are not present during telemedicine visits. With regards to the types of clinical education that telemedicine could provide, only 33.9% of respondents agreed that interpretation of physical exam maneuvers can be taught (mean score = - 0.28, SD = ± 1.13). The most frequent research tasks performed over telehealth were follow-up of imaging (28.7%) and study group meetings (26.6%). Of all survey responses provided by members, there were no regional differences (p > 0.05 for all comparisons). CONCLUSIONS: Our study of spine surgeons worldwide noted high agreement among specialists for the implantation of telemedicine in trainee curricula, underscoring the global acceptance of this medium for patient management going forward. A greater emphasis towards trainee participation as well as establishing best practices in telemedicine are essential to equip future spine specialists with the necessary skills for navigating this emerging platform.

Provider confidence in the telemedicine spine evaluation: results from a global study.

PURPOSE: To utilize data from a global spine surgeon survey to elucidate (1) overall confidence in the telemedicine evaluation and (2) determinants of provider confidence. METHODS: Members of AO Spine International were sent a survey encompassing participant's experience with, perception of, and comparison of telemedicine to in-person visits. The survey was designed through a Delphi approach, with four rounds of question review by the multi-disciplinary authors. Data were stratified by provider age, experience, telemedicine platform, trust in telemedicine, and specialty. RESULTS: Four hundred and eighty-five surgeons participated in the survey. The global effort included respondents from Africa (19.9%), Asia Pacific (19.7%), Europe (24.3%), North America (9.4%), and South America (26.6%). Providers felt that physical exam-based tasks (e.g., provocative testing, assessing neurologic deficits/myelopathy, etc.) were inferior to in-person exams, while communication-based aspects (e.g., history taking, imaging review, etc.) were equivalent. Participants who performed greater than 50 visits were more likely to believe telemedicine was at least equivalent to in-person visits in the ability to make an accurate diagnosis (OR 2.37, 95% C.I. 1.03-5.43). Compared to in-person encounters, video (versus phone only) visits were associated with increased confidence in the ability of telemedicine to formulate and communicate a treatment plan (OR 3.88, 95% C.I. 1.71-8.84). CONCLUSION: Spine surgeons are confident in the ability of telemedicine to communicate with patients, but are concerned about its capacity to accurately make physical exam-based diagnoses. Future research should concentrate on standardizing the remote examination and the development of appropriate use criteria in order to increase provider confidence in telemedicine technology.

Spine surgeon perceptions of the challenges and benefits of telemedicine: an international study.

INTRODUCTION: While telemedicine usage has increased due to the COVID-19 pandemic, there remains little consensus about how spine surgeons perceive virtual care. The purpose of this study was to explore international perspectives of spine providers on the challenges and benefits of telemedicine. METHODS: Responses from 485 members of AO Spine were analyzed, covering provider perceptions of the challenges and benefits of telemedicine. All questions were optional, and blank responses were excluded from analysis. RESULTS: The leading challenges reported by surgeons were decreased ability to perform physical examinations (38.6%), possible increased medicolegal exposure (19.3%), and lack of reimbursement parity compared to traditional visits (15.5%). Fewer than 9.0% of respondents experienced technological issues. On average, respondents agreed that telemedicine increases access to care for rural/long-distance patients, provides societal cost savings, and increases patient convenience. Responses were mixed about whether telemedicine leads to greater patient satisfaction. North Americans experienced the most challenges, but also thought telemedicine carried the most benefits, whereas Africans reported the fewest challenges and benefits. Age did not affect responses. CONCLUSION: Spine surgeons are supportive of the benefits of telemedicine, and only a small minority experienced technical issues. The decreased ability to perform the physical examination was the top challenge and remains a major obstacle to virtual care for spine surgeons around the world, although interestingly, 61.4% of providers did not acknowledge this to be a major challenge. Significant groundwork in optimizing remote physical examination maneuvers and achieving legal and reimbursement clarity is necessary for widespread implementation.

Learning from the past: did experience with previous epidemics help mitigate the impact of COVID-19 among spine surgeons worldwide?

PURPOSE: Spine surgeons around the world have been universally impacted by COVID-19. The current study addressed whether prior experience with disease epidemics among the spine surgeon community had an impact on preparedness and response toward COVID-19. METHODS: A 73-item survey was distributed to spine surgeons worldwide via AO Spine. Questions focused on: demographics, COVID-19 preparedness, response, and impact. Respondents with and without prior epidemic experience (e.g., SARS, H1NI, MERS) were assessed on preparedness and response via univariate and multivariate modeling. Results of the survey were compared against the Global Health Security Index. RESULTS: Totally, 902 surgeons from 7 global regions completed the survey. 24.2% of respondents had prior experience with global health crises. Only 49.6% reported adequate access to personal protective equipment. There were no differences in preparedness reported by respondents with prior epidemic exposure. Government and hospital responses were fairly consistent around the world. Prior epidemic experience did not impact the presence of preparedness guidelines. There were subtle differences in sources of stress, coping strategies, performance of elective surgeries, and impact on income driven by prior epidemic exposure. 94.7% expressed a need for formal, international guidelines to help mitigate the impact of the current and future pandemics. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study to note that prior experience with infectious disease crises did not appear to help spine surgeons prepare for the current COVID-19 pandemic. Based on survey results, the GHSI was not an effective measure of COVID-19 preparedness. Formal international guidelines for crisis preparedness are needed to mitigate future pandemics.

Correction to: Learning from the past: did experience with previous epidemics help mitigate the impact of COVID-19 among spine surgeons worldwide?

Unfortunately, the 13th author name has been incorrectly published in the original publication. The complete correct name is given below.

Delayed presentation of lower cervical facet dislocations: What to learn from past reports?

Delayed presentation of lower cervical facet dislocations is uncommon, and there is no standardized way to approach these neglected injuries. The literature on neglected lower cervical facet dislocations is limited to case reports and few retrospective studies. This justifies the need for a comprehensive review of this condition. Our purpose was to elaborate a review on the epidemiology, clinical and radiological presentation, and treatment techniques and approach to these neglected injuries. Middle-aged adults from 30 to 50 represent 73.8% of reported cases, and most of them are males (72.0%). The most affected level is C5-C6 (43.0%). While most delays are due to missed injuries (52.1%) and ineffective non-operative treatment (36.2%), the other reason for delay is negligence in seeking medical care (11.7%). Patients present with variable degrees of neurological deficit, persistent neck pain, and neck stiffness. Reported approaches and techniques to reduce and stabilize these injuries are highly variable and depend on the surgeon's judgment, experience, and preference. Fibrotic tissues and bony fusion around the dislocated facet joint contribute to the reduction challenge, and 77.0% of closed reduction attempts fail. Anterior and posterior approaches to the cervical spine are used selectively or in combination for surgical release, reduction, and stabilization. Despite the lack of standardized treatment guidelines and different approaches, most of the authors reported improvement in pain, balance, and neurology post-surgery. Starting with the posterior surgical approach aims to achieve reduction compared to the anterior approach which largely aims at spinal decompression. Given the existing controversies, the need for quality prospective studies to determine the best treatment approach for lower cervical facet dislocations presenting with delay is evident.

Autofusion in growing rod surgery for early onset scoliosis; what do we know so far?

The evolving landscape of early onset scoliosis management has shifted from the traditional paradigm of early definitive spinal fusion towards modern growth-friendly implants, particularly Growing Rods (GR). Despite the initial classification of GR treatment as a fusionless procedure, the phenomenon of autofusion has emerged as a critical consideration in understanding its outcomes. Studies have demonstrated the presence of autofusion since the early 1980s. The consequences of autofusion are extensive, impacting curve correction, diminishing trunk growth rate, and contributing to the "law of diminishing returns" in growing rod surgery. The literature suggests that autofusion may complicate definitive fusion surgery, leading to prolonged and intricate procedures involving multiple osteotomies. Additionally, it poses challenges in identifying anatomical landmarks during surgery, potentially increasing the risk of complications and revisions. While autofusion poses challenges to achieving optimal outcomes in growing rod treatment, it cannot be considered a standalone replacement for definitive fusion. Recent advances aim to limit autofusion and enhance treatment outcomes. In this review, we will delve into the existing literature on autofusion, examining studies that have documented its presence, probable causes, pathophysiology, potential implications for long-term patient outcomes, and possible new implants and techniques that decrease its incidence.

An Assessment of the World's Contribution to Spine Trauma Care: A Bibliometric Analysis of Classifications and Surgical Management; An AO Spine Knowledge Forum Trauma Initiative.

STUDY DESIGN: Bibliometric analysis. OBJECTIVES: An analysis of the literature related to the assessment and management of spinal trauma was undertaken to allow the identification of top contributors, collaborations and research trends. METHODS: A search to identify original articles published in English between 2011 and 2020 was done using specific keywords in the Web of Science database. After screening, the top 300 most cited articles were analyzed using Biblioshiny R software. RESULTS: The highest number of contributions were from the Thomas Jefferson University, USA, University of Toronto and University of British Columbia, Canada. The top 3 most prolific authors were Vaccaro AR, Arabi B, and Oner FC. The USA and Canada were among the top contributing countries; Switzerland and Brazil had most multiple country co-authored articles. The most relevant journals were the European Spine Journal, Spine and Spine Journal. Three of the 5 most cited articles were about classification systems of fractures. The keyword analysis included clusters for different spinal regions, spinal cord injury, classification agreement and reliability studies, imaging related studies, surgical techniques and outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: The study identified the most impactful authors and affiliations, and determined the journals where most impactful research is published in the field. Study also compared the productivity and collaborations across countries. The study highlighted the impact of development of new classification systems, and identified research trends including instrumentation, fixation and decompression techniques, epidemiology and recovery after spinal trauma.

Do Osteobiologics Augment Fusion in Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion Surgery Performed With Mechanical Interbody Devices (Polyether ether ketone, Carbon Fiber, Metal Cages) and is the Fusion Rate Comparable to that With Autograft? A Systematic Review.

STUDY DESIGN: Systematic Review of the Literature. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to perform a systematic review describing fusion rates for anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) using autograft vs various interbody devices augmented with different osteobiologic materials. METHODS: A systematic review limited to the English language was performed in Medline, Embase and Cochrane library using Medical Subject Heading (MeSH) terms. Studies that evaluated fusion after ACDF using autografts and osteobiologics combined with PEEK, carbon fibre, or metal cages were searched for. Articles in full text that met the criteria were included in the review. The main outcomes evaluated were the time taken to merge, the definition of the fusion assessment, and the modality of the fusion assessment. The risk of bias of each article was assessed by the MINORS score or ROB 2.0 depending on the randomisation process. RESULTS: The total number of references reviewed was six hundred and eighty-two. After applying the inclusion criteria, 54 were selected for the retrieval of the full text. Eight studies were selected and included for final analysis in this study. Fusion rates were reported between 83.3% and 100% for autograft groups compared to 46.5% and 100% for various interbody device/osteobiological combinations. The overall quality of the evidence in all radiographic fusion studies was considered insufficient due to a serious risk of bias. CONCLUSION: Mechanical interbody devices augmented with osteobiologics performed similarly to autografts in terms of reliability and efficacy. Their time to fusion and fusion rate were comparable to autografts at the end of the final follow-up.

Posterolateral Fusion Versus Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Adult Low-Grade Isthmic Spondylolisthesis: Analysis of Sagittal Radiographic Parameters - A Randomized Controlled Trial.

STUDY DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial. OBJECTIVES: To compare the effect of posterolateral fusion (PLF) and posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) on sagittal radiographic parameters in patients with low-grade isthmic spondylolisthesis. Additionally, to explore the correlation between changes in these parameters and clinical outcomes. METHODS: Forty-six consecutive patients with single-level low-grade isthmic spondylolisthesis were initially enrolled. They were randomly assigned to undergo either PLF or PLIF. Patients were followed up for at least 24 months. Radiographic outcomes included pelvic incidence, pelvic tilt, sacral slope, lumbar lordosis, sagittal vertical axis, T1 pelvic angle, slip angle, slip degree and disc height. Clinical outcomes were assessed by the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and visual analogue scale (VAS). RESULTS: Four participants were lost to follow-up. Of the remaining 42 patients, 29 were female. The mean age was 40.23 ± 10.25 years in the PLF group and 35.81 ± 10.58 years in the PLIF group. There was a statistically significant greater correction of all radiographic parameters in the PLIF group. The ODI and VAS improved significantly in both groups, with no significant differences between the two groups. Changes in the ODI and VAS were significantly correlated with changes in disc height, slip angle and lumbar lordosis. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with low-grade isthmic spondylolisthesis, PLIF demonstrates superior efficacy compared to PLF in correcting sagittal radiographic parameters. Nevertheless, this distinction does not seem to influence short-term clinical results. Restoring disc height, correcting the slip angle, and reestablishing normal lumbar lordosis are crucial steps in the surgical management of isthmic spondylolisthesis.

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 < .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 < .001) and the ICC between individual measures was moderate (ICC = .403; 95% CI .351 - .461; P < .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 < .001). The ICC for PLC status in A3 and A4 injuries averaged across all measures was excellent (ICC = .936; 95% CI .922 - .949; P < .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.

AO Spine Guideline for the Use of Osteobiologics (AOGO) in Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion for Spinal Degenerative Cases.

STUDY DESIGN: Guideline. OBJECTIVES: To develop an international guideline (AOGO) about the use of osteobiologics in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) for treating degenerative spine conditions. METHODS: The guideline development process was guided by AO Spine Knowledge Forum Degenerative (KF Degen) and followed the Guideline International Network McMaster Guideline Development Checklist. The process involved 73 participants with expertise in degenerative spine diseases and surgery from 22 countries. Fifteen systematic reviews were conducted addressing respective key topics and evidence was collected. The methodologist compiled the evidence into GRADE Evidence-to-Decision frameworks. Guideline panel members judged the outcomes and other criteria and made the final recommendations through consensus. RESULTS: Five conditional recommendations were created. A conditional recommendation is about the use of allograft, autograft or a cage with an osteobiologic in primary ACDF surgery. Other conditional recommendations are about the use of osteobiologic for single- or multi-level ACDF, and for hybrid construct surgery. It is suggested that surgeons use other osteobiologics rather than human bone morphogenetic protein-2 (BMP-2) in common clinical situations. Surgeons are recommended to choose 1 graft over another or 1 osteobiologic over another primarily based on clinical situation, and the costs and availability of the materials. CONCLUSION: This AOGO guideline is the first to provide recommendations for the use of osteobiologics in ACDF. Despite the comprehensive searches for evidence, there were few studies completed with small sample sizes and primarily as case series with inherent risks of bias. Therefore, high-quality clinical evidence is demanded to improve the guideline.

Can Orthopaedic Surgeons adequately assess an Electrocardiogram (ECG) trace paper? A cross sectional study.

Objectives: The primary objective was to evaluate the ECG trace paper evaluation current knowledge level in a group of Orthopaedic surgeons divided into juniors and seniors according to M.D. degree possession. Methods: A cross sectional study through self-administered questionnaires at a university hospital Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery Department. The questionnaire included five sections: 1-Basic participants' characteristics, 2-Participants' perception of their ECG evaluation current knowledge level, 3-The main body of the questionnaire was an ECG quiz (seven); the participant was asked to determine if it was normal and the possible diagnosis, 4-Participants' desired ECG evaluation knowledge level, and 5-Willingness to attend ECG evaluation workshops. Results: Of the 121 actively working individuals in the department, 96 (97.3 %) finished the questionnaire, and 85 (77.3 %) were valid for final evaluation. The participants' mean age was 30.4 ± 6.92 years, 76.5 % juniors and 23.5 % seniors. 83.5 % of the participants perceived their current ECG evaluation knowledge as none or limited. For participants' ability to evaluate an ECG, higher scores were achieved when determining if the ECG was normal or abnormal, with a mean score percentage of 79.32 % ± 23.27. However, the scores were lower when trying to reach the diagnosis, with a mean score percentage of 43.02 % ± 27.48. There was a significant negative correlation between the participant's age and answering the normality question correctly (r = -0.277, p = 0.01); and a significant positive correlation between answering the diagnosis question correctly and the desired level of knowledge and the intention to attend a workshop about ECG evaluation, r = 0.355 (p = 0.001), and r = 0.223 (p = 0.04), respectively. Only 56.5 % of the participants desired to get more knowledge, and 81.2 % were interested in attending ECG evaluation workshops. Conclusion: Orthopaedic surgeons showed sufficient knowledge when determining the normality of ECG trace papers; however, they could not reach the proper diagnosis, and Junior surgeons performed slightly better than their senior peers. Most surgeons are willing to attend ECG evaluation and interpretation workshops to improve their knowledge level.

Management of C0 Sacral Fractures Based on the AO Spine Sacral Injury Classification: A Narrative Review.

The Arbeitsgemeinschaft fur Osteosynthese fragen Spine Sacral Injury Classification hierarchically separates fractures based on their injury severity with A-type fractures representing less severe injuries and C-type fractures representing the most severe fracture types. C0 fractures represent moderately severe injuries and have historically been referred to as nondisplaced "U-type" fractures. Injury management of these fractures can be controversial. Therefore, the purpose of this narrative review is to first discuss the Arbeitsgemeinschaft fur Osteosynthese fragen Spine Sacral Injury Classification System and describe the different fracture types and classification modifiers, with particular emphasis on C0 fracture types. The narrative review will then focus on the epidemiology and etiology of C0 fractures with subsequent discussion focused on the clinical presentation for patients with these injuries. Next, we will describe the imaging findings associated with these injuries and discuss the injury management of these injuries with particular emphasis on operative management. Finally, we will outline the outcomes and complications that can be expected during the treatment of these injuries.

Telemedicine in Spine Surgery: Global Perspectives and Practices.

STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional, anonymous, international survey. OBJECTIVES: The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in the rapid adoption of telemedicine in spine surgery. This study sought to determine the extent of adoption and global perspectives on telemedicine in spine surgery. METHODS: All members of AO Spine International were emailed an anonymous survey covering the participant's experiences with and perceptions of telemedicine. Descriptive statistics were used to depict responses. Responses were compared among regions. RESULTS: 485 spine surgeons participated in the survey. Telemedicine usage rose from <10.0% to >39.0% of all visits. A majority of providers (60.5%) performed at least one telemedicine visit. The format of "telemedicine" varied widely by region: European (50.0%) and African (45.2%) surgeons were more likely to use phone calls, whereas North (66.7%) and South American (77.0%) surgeons more commonly used video (P < 0.001). North American providers used telemedicine the most during COVID-19 (>60.0% of all visits). 81.9% of all providers "agreed/strongly agreed" telemedicine was easy to use. Respondents tended to "agree" that imaging review, the initial appointment, and postoperative care could be performed using telemedicine. Almost all (95.4%) surgeons preferred at least one in-person visit prior to the day of surgery. CONCLUSION: Our study noted significant geographical differences in the rate of telemedicine adoption and the platform of telemedicine utilized. The results suggest a significant increase in telemedicine utilization, particularly in North America. Spine surgeons found telemedicine feasible for imaging review, initial visits, and follow-up visits although the vast majority still preferred at least one in-person preoperative visit.

Effect of surgical experience and spine subspecialty on the reliability of the AO Spine Upper Cervical Injury Classification System.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this paper was to determine the interobserver reliability and intraobserver reproducibility of the AO Spine Upper Cervical Injury Classification System based on surgeon experience (< 5 years, 5-10 years, 10-20 years, and > 20 years) and surgical subspecialty (orthopedic spine surgery, neurosurgery, and "other" surgery). METHODS: A total of 11,601 assessments of upper cervical spine injuries were evaluated based on the AO Spine Upper Cervical Injury Classification System. Reliability and reproducibility scores were obtained twice, with a 3-week time interval. Descriptive statistics were utilized to examine the percentage of accurately classified injuries, and Pearson's chi-square or Fisher's exact test was used to screen for potentially relevant differences between study participants. Kappa coefficients (κ) determined the interobserver reliability and intraobserver reproducibility. RESULTS: The intraobserver reproducibility was substantial for surgeon experience level (< 5 years: 0.74 vs 5-10 years: 0.69 vs 10-20 years: 0.69 vs > 20 years: 0.70) and surgical subspecialty (orthopedic spine: 0.71 vs neurosurgery: 0.69 vs other: 0.68). Furthermore, the interobserver reliability was substantial for all surgical experience groups on assessment 1 (< 5 years: 0.67 vs 5-10 years: 0.62 vs 10-20 years: 0.61 vs > 20 years: 0.62), and only surgeons with > 20 years of experience did not have substantial reliability on assessment 2 (< 5 years: 0.62 vs 5-10 years: 0.61 vs 10-20 years: 0.61 vs > 20 years: 0.59). Orthopedic spine surgeons and neurosurgeons had substantial intraobserver reproducibility on both assessment 1 (0.64 vs 0.63) and assessment 2 (0.62 vs 0.63), while other surgeons had moderate reliability on assessment 1 (0.43) and fair reliability on assessment 2 (0.36). CONCLUSIONS: The international reliability and reproducibility scores for the AO Spine Upper Cervical Injury Classification System demonstrated substantial intraobserver reproducibility and interobserver reliability regardless of surgical experience and spine subspecialty. These results support the global application of this classification system.

Spinal Post-traumatic Deformity: An International Expert Survey Among AO Spine Knowledge Forum Members.

STUDY DESIGN: Survey among spine experts. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the different views and opinions of clinically relevant spinal post-traumatic deformity (SPTD). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: There is no clear definition of clinically relevant SPTD. This leads to a wide variation in characteristics used for diagnosis and treatment indications of SPTD. To understand the current concepts of SPTD a survey was conducted among spine trauma surgeons. METHODS: Members of the AO Spine Knowledge Forum Trauma participated in an online survey. The survey was divided in 4 domains: Demographics, criteria to define SPTD, risk factors, and management. The data were collected anonymously and analyzed using descriptive statistics, absolute, and relative frequencies. Consensus on dichotomous outcomes was set to 80% of agreement. RESULTS: Fifteen members with extensive experience in treatment of spinal trauma participated, representing the 5 AO Spine Regions. Back pain was the only criterion for definition of SPTD with complete agreement. Consensus (≥80%) was reached for kyphotic angulation outside normative ranges and impaired function. Eighty-seven percent and 100% agreed that a full-spine conventional radiograph was necessary in diagnosing and treating SPTD, respectively. The "missed B-type injury" was rated at most important by all but 1 participant. There was no agreement on other risk factors leading to clinically relevant SPTD. Concerning the management, all participants agreed that an asymptomatic patient should not undergo surgical treatment and that neurological deficit is an absolute surgical indication. For most of the participants the preferred surgical treatment of acute injury in all spine regions but the subaxial region is posterior fixation. CONCLUSION: Some consensus exists among leading experts in the field of spine trauma care concerning the definition, diagnosis, risk factors, and management of SPTD. This study acts as the foundation for a Delphi study among the global spine community.