SPINE20 recommendations 2023: One Earth, one family, one future WITHOUT spine DISABILITY.

Introduction: The purpose is to report on the fourth set of recommendations developed by SPINE20 to advocate for evidence-based spine care globally under the theme of "One Earth, One Family, One Future WITHOUT Spine DISABILITY". Research question: Not applicable. Material and methods: Recommendations were developed and refined through two modified Delphi processes with international, multi-professional panels. Results: Seven recommendations were delivered to the G20 countries calling them to:-establish, prioritize and implement accessible National Spine Care Programs to improve spine care and health outcomes.-eliminate structural barriers to accessing timely rehabilitation for spinal disorders to reduce poverty.-implement cost-effective, evidence-based practice for digital transformation in spine care, to deliver self-management and prevention, evaluate practice and measure outcomes.-monitor and reduce safety lapses in primary care including missed diagnoses of serious spine pathologies and risk factors for spinal disability and chronicity.-develop, implement and evaluate standardization processes for spine care delivery systems tailored to individual and population health needs.-ensure accessible and affordable quality care to persons with spine disorders, injuries and related disabilities throughout the lifespan.-promote and facilitate healthy lifestyle choices (including physical activity, nutrition, smoking cessation) to improve spine wellness and health. Discussion and conclusion: SPINE20 proposes that focusing on the recommendations would facilitate equitable access to health systems, affordable spine care delivered by a competent healthcare workforce, and education of persons with spine disorders, which will contribute to reducing spine disability, associated poverty, and increase productivity of the G20 nations.

The Diagnostic Process of Spinal Post-traumatic Deformity: An Expert Survey of 7 Cases, Consensus on Clinical Relevance Does Exist.

STUDY DESIGN: Survey of cases. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the opinion of experts in the diagnostic process of clinically relevant Spinal Post-traumatic Deformity (SPTD). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: SPTD is a potential complication of spine trauma that can cause decreased function and quality of life impairment. The question of when SPTD becomes clinically relevant is yet to be resolved. METHODS: The survey of 7 cases was sent to 31 experts. The case presentation was medical history, diagnostic assessment, evaluation of diagnostic assessment, diagnosis, and treatment options. Means, ranges, percentages of participants, and descriptive statistics were calculated. RESULTS: Seventeen spinal surgeons reviewed the presented cases. The items' fracture type and complaints were rated by the participants as more important, but no agreement existed on the items of medical history. In patients with possible SPTD in the cervical spine (C) area, participants requested a conventional radiograph (CR) (76%-83%), a flexion/extension CR (61%-71%), a computed tomography (CT)-scan (76%-89%), and a magnetic resonance (MR)-scan (89%-94%). In thoracolumbar spine (ThL) cases, full spine CR (89%-100%), CT scan (72%-94%), and MR scan (65%-94%) were requested most often. There was a consensus on 5 out of 7 cases with clinically relevant SPTD (82%-100%). When consensus existed on the diagnosis of SPTD, there was a consensus on the case being compensated or decompensated and being symptomatic or asymptomatic. CONCLUSIONS: There was strong agreement in 5 out of 7 cases on the presence of the diagnosis of clinically relevant SPTD. Among spine experts, there is a strong consensus to use CT scan and MR scan, a cervical CR for C-cases, and a full spine CR for ThL-cases. The lack of agreement on items of the medical history suggests that a Delphi study can help us reach a consensus on the essential items of clinically relevant SPTD. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level V.

Validation of the Hierarchical Nature of the AO Spine Sacral Classification and the Development of the Sacral AO Spine Injury Score.

STUDY DESIGN: Global cross-sectional survey. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to validate the hierarchical nature of the AO Spine Sacral Classification System and develop an injury scoring system. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Although substantial interobserver and intraobserver reliability of the AO Spine Sacral Classification System has been established, the hierarchical nature of the classification has yet to be validated. METHODS: Respondents numerically graded each variable within the classification system for severity. Based on the results, a Sacral AO Spine Injury Score (AOSIS) was developed. RESULTS: A total of 142 responses were received. The classification exhibited a hierarchical Injury Severity Score (ISS) progression (A1: 8 to C3: 95) with few exceptions. Subtypes B1 and B2 fractures showed no significant difference in ISS (B1 43.9 vs. B2 43.4, P =0.362). In addition, the transitions A3→B1 and B3→C0 represent significant decreases in ISS (A3 66.3 vs. B1 43.9, P <0.001; B3 64.2 vs. C0 46.4, P <0.001). Accordingly, A1 injury was assigned a score of 0. A2 and A3 received scores of 1 and 3 points, respectively. Posterior pelvic injuries B1 and B2 both received a score of 2. B3 received a score of 3 points. C0, C1, C2, and C3 received scores of 2, 3, 5, and 6 points, respectively. The scores assigned to neurological modifiers N0, N1, N2, N3, and NX were 0, 1, 2, 4, and 3, respectively. Case-specific modifiers M1, M2, M3, and M4 received scores of 0, 0, 1, and 2 points, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study validate the hierarchical nature of the AO Spine Sacral Classification System. The Sacral AOSIS sets the foundation for further studies to develop a universally accepted treatment algorithm for the treatment of complex sacral injuries. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV-Diagnostic.

Pediatric cervical spine injuries-results of the German multicenter CHILDSPINE study.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to provide epidemiological data of pediatric patients suffering from cervical spinal trauma in Germany, in order to integrate these data in future decision-making processes concerning diagnosis and therapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Retrospective multicenter study includes all patients up to 16 years suffering from cervical spine injuries who were treated in six German spine centers between 01/2010 and 12/2016. The clinical databases were screened for specific trauma mechanism, level of injury as well as accompanying injuries. Diagnostic imaging and the chosen therapy were analyzed. Patients were divided into three age groups for further evaluation: age group I (0-6 years), age group II (7-9 years), age group III (10-16 years). RESULTS: A total of 214 children with 265 cervical spine injuries were included during the mentioned period. The mean age at the time of injury was 11.9 (± 3.9) years. In age group I, 24 (11.2%) patients were included, age group II consisted of 22 patients (10.3%), and 168 patients belonged to age group III (78.5%). Girls and boys were equally affected. In all age groups, falls and traffic accidents were the most common causes of cervical spine injuries. A total of 180 patients (84.1%) were treated conservatively, while 34 (15.9%) children underwent surgery. Distorsion/whiplash injury was the most common entity (n = 165; 68.2%). Children aged 0-9 years had significantly (p < 0.001) more frequent injuries of the upper cervical spine (C0-C2) compared to older age groups. Patients of age group III were more likely to suffer from injuries in subaxial localizations. Neurological deficits were rarely seen in all age groups. Head injuries did represent the most common accompanying injuries (39.8%, n = 92). CONCLUSIONS: The upper cervical spine was more frequently affected in young children. Older children more often suffered from subaxial pathologies. The majority of cervical spinal column injuries were treated conservatively. Nevertheless, 15% of the hospitalized children had to be treated surgically.

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.

Prevention of Surgical Site Infections in Spine Surgery: An International Survey of Clinical Practices Among Expert Spine Surgeons.

STUDY DESIGN: Questionnaire-based survey. OBJECTIVES: Surgical site infection (SSI) is a common complication in spine surgery but universal guidelines for SSI prevention are lacking. The objectives of this study are to depict a global status quo on implemented prevention strategies in spine surgery, common themes of practice and determine key areas for future research. METHODS: An 80-item survey was distributed among spine surgeons worldwide via email. The questionnaire was designed and approved by an International Consensus Group on spine SSI. Consensus was defined as more than 60% of participants agreeing to a specific prevention strategy. RESULTS: Four hundred seventy-two surgeons participated in the survey. Screening for Staphylococcus aureus (SA) is not common, whereas preoperative decolonization is performed in almost half of all hospitals. Body mass index (BMI) was not important for surgery planning. In contrast, elevated HbA1c level and hypoalbuminemia were often considered as reasons to postpone surgery. Cefazoline is the common drug for antimicrobial prophylaxis. Alcohol-based chlorhexidine is mainly used for skin disinfection. Double-gloving, wound irrigation, and tissue-conserving surgical techniques are routine in the operating room (OR). Local antibiotic administration is not common. Wound closure techniques and postoperative wound dressing routines vary greatly between the participating institutions. CONCLUSIONS: With this study we provide an international overview on the heterogeneity of SSI prevention strategies in spine surgery. We demonstrated a large heterogeneity for pre-, peri- and postoperative measures to prevent SSI. Our data illustrated the need for developing universal guidelines and for testing areas of controversy in prospective clinical trials.

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.

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.

SPINE20 recommendations 2022: spine care-working together to recover stronger.

PURPOSE: Globally, spine disorders are the leading cause of disability, affecting more than half a billion individuals. However, less than 50% of G20 countries specifically identify spine health within their public policy priorities. Therefore, it is crucial to raise awareness among policy makers of the disabling effect of spine disorders and their impact on the economic welfare of G20 nations. In 2019, SPINE20 was established as the leading advocacy group to bring global attention to spine disorders. METHODS: Recommendations were developed through two Delphi methods with international and multi-professional panels. RESULTS: In 2022, seven recommendations were delivered to the leaders of G20 countries, urging them to: Develop action plans to provide universal access to evidence-based spine care that incorporates the needs of minorities and vulnerable populations. Invest in the development of sustainable human resource capacity, through multisectoral and inter-professional competency-based education and training to promote evidence-based approaches to spine care, and to build an appropriate healthcare working environment that optimizes the delivery of safe health services. Develop policies using the best available evidence to properly manage spine disorders and to prolong functional healthy life expectancy in the era of an aging population. Create a competent workforce and improve the healthcare infrastructure/facilities including equipment to provide evidence-based inter-professional rehabilitation services to patients with spinal cord injury throughout their continuum of care. Build collaborative and innovative translational research capacity within national, regional, and global healthcare systems for state-of-the-art and cost-effective spine care across the healthcare continuum ensuring equality, diversity, and inclusion of all stakeholders. Develop international consensus statements on patient outcomes and how they can be used to define and develop pathways for value-based care. Recognize that intervening on determinants of health including physical activity, nutrition, physical and psychosocial workplace environment, and smoking-free lifestyle can reduce the burden of spine disabilities and improve the health status and wellness of the population. At the third SPINE20 summit 2022 which took place in Bali, Indonesia, in August 2022, 17 associations endorsed its recommendations. CONCLUSION: SPINE20 advocacy efforts focus on developing public policy recommendations to improve the health, welfare, and wellness of all who suffer from spinal pain and disability. We propose that focusing on facilitating access to systems that prioritize value-based care delivered by a competent healthcare workforce will reduce disability and improve the productivity of the G20 nations.

[Cement augmentation in spinal surgery]. / Zementaugmentation in der Wirbelsäulenchirurgie.

Bone cement has been used in spinal surgery for as long as 50 years. In contemporary spinal surgery, cement augmentation of fractured osteoporotic vertebrae in the form of vertebroplasty/kyphoplasty as well as cement augmentation of pedicle screws in instrumented procedures of any etiology are established as standard procedures. Both procedures are very effective, although the benefits of vertebroplasty/kyphoplasty procedures have been controversially discussed in the past. Overall, complications rarely occur. The most relevant complication is cement leakage, which is asymptomatic in the majority of cases but in the worst case might lead to neurological deficits, embolic events and even circulatory collapse. Prevention of cement leakage is therefore crucial. Risk factors for cement leakage and preventive measures are presented in a comprehensive review based on the available literature.

Sporadic desmoid fibromatosis of the neck after dorsal spondylodesis of the cervical spine.

BACKGROUND: Rare soft-tissue tumors, termed desmoid fibromatosis (DF), are comprised proliferated spindle cell fibroblasts and myofibroblasts embedded in a prominent collagenous stroma. They can occur either sporadically, due to prior trauma or surgery, or may have a genetic component. Clinically, DF has a high infiltrative growth/ local recurrence rate, but does not metastasize. CASE DESCRIPTION: A 58-year-old male underwent a C5-C7 laminectomy/instrumented fusion. Two years later, he presented with a large gross swelling on the right side of the neck. The lesion was removed and proved to histologically consist of DF. Within the first postoperative 12 months, tumor did not recur. CONCLUSION: Sporadic DF may follow trauma or prior surgery. Symptomatic tumors are treated by surgical en bloc resection (preferably R0). If lesions are inoperable, partially resected, or recur, different hormonal/ chemotherapeutic systematic treatment options are available (e.g., tamoxifen or tyrosine kinase inhibitors). In the future, better molecular understanding of DF likely offers additional therapeutic approaches (e.g., immune checkpoint inhibitors).

Rupture of the Superior Sagittal Sinus in Penetrating Head Injury-Management of a Rare Trauma Mechanism.

Civilian penetrating head injury caused by foreign objects is rare in Germany (Europe), but can result in complex neurovascular damage. We report on a patient who in suicidal intent inflicted on himself a penetrating brain injury near the vertex with a captive bolt gun. A laceration at the junction of the middle to the posterior third of the superior sinus occurred by bolt and bone fragments leading to critical stenosis and subsequent thrombosis. Upon surgery, the proximal and distal sinus openings were completely thrombosed. The sinus laceration was closed by suture and the intraparenchymal bone fragments were retrieved. Postoperative angiography disclosed persistent occlusion of the superior sagittal sinus. The patient did not develop any symptoms due to venous congestion (edema, hemorrhage), suggesting sufficient collateral venous outflow. The patient completely recovered despite the complexity of the lesion.

Update on Upper Cervical Injury Classifications: The New AO Upper Cervical Spine Classification System.

The upper cervical spine accounts for the largest proportion of cervical range of motion afforded by a complex system of bony morphology and ligamentous stability. Its unique anatomy, however, also makes it particularly vulnerable during both low and high energy trauma. Trauma to this area, referred to as upper cervical spine trauma, can disrupt the stability of the upper cervical spine and result in a wide spectrum of injury. Numerous upper cervical injury classification systems have been proposed, each of which have distinct limitations and drawbacks that have prevented their universal adoption. In this article, we provide an overview of previous classifications, with an emphasis on the development of the new AO Spine Upper Cervical Classification System (AO Spine UCCS).

Multicenter evaluation of therapeutic strategies of inpatients with osteoporotic vertebral fractures in Germany.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to assess therapeutic strategies of inpatients with osteoporotic thoracolumbar fractures (OTF) in Germany. METHODS: Prospective multi-center study including 16 German-speaking trauma centers over a period of 7 months. All inpatients with OTF were included. Radiological and clinical data on admission and treatment modalities were assessed. RESULTS: Seven hundred and seven (99.3%) out of 712 included patients (73.3% female) could be evaluated. Mean age was 75 years (30-103). 51.3% could not remember any traumatic incident. Fracture distribution was from T2 to L5 with L1 (19%) most commonly affected. According to the Magerl classification type A1 (52.1%) and A3 (42.7%) were most common. B and C type injuries (2.6%) and neurological deficits (3.1%) were rare. Previous progression of vertebral deformation was evident in 34.4% of patients and related to t score below - 3 (Odds ratio 1.9661). Patients presented with anticoagulation medication (15.4%), dementia (13%), and ASA score > 3 (12.4%) frequently. 82.3% of patients complained of pain > 4 on VAS, 37% could not be mobilized despite pain medication according to grade II WHO pain ladder. 81.6% received operative treatment. Kyphoplasty (63.8%) and hybrid stabilization including kyphoplasty with (14.4%) or without screw augmentation (7.6%) were the techniques most frequently used. Invasiveness of treatment increased with degree of instability. CONCLUSIONS: OTF are mostly type A compression fractures. Patients suffer from severe pain and immobilization frequently. Progression of deformity is correlated to t score below - 3. Treatment of inpatients is mainly surgical, with kyphoplasty followed by hybrid stabilization as commonly used techniques.

[Guideline-conform treatment of injuries to the subaxial cervical spine]. / Leitliniengerechte Therapie von Verletzungen der subaxialen Halswirbelsäule.

Injuries to the subaxial cervical spine are increasing and have an increased neurological risk compared to the thoracic and lumbar spines. The current treatment recommendations according to the therapeutic recommendations of the Spine Section of the German Society for Orthopedics and Trauma Surgery (DGOU) as well as the S1 guidelines of the German Trauma Society (DGU) are presented. This second part of the article describes the correct indications and treatment planning for injuries to the cervical spine. Based on the AOSpine classification for subaxial cervical spine injuries, decisions can be made about conservative or surgical treatment as well as individual details of the treatment. The underlying principles of treatment are relief of neurological structures, restoration of stability and reconstruction/preservation of the physiological alignment.

PLIF surgery with titanium-coated PEEK or uncoated PEEK cages: a prospective randomised clinical and radiological study.

PURPOSE: This study aimed to compare clinical results and fusion rates of uncoated polyetheretherketone (PEEK) cages with titanium-coated PEEK cages in posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) surgery. METHODS: A prospective randomised study including 60 patients with one- or two-segment lumbar degenerative diseases. Patients received either titanium-coated PEEK cages (group A) or uncoated PEEK cages (group B). Fusion rates were evaluated on plain X-rays and CT scans after 6 and 12 months. Clinical follow-up (visual analogue scale, VAS; Oswestry Disability Index score, ODI; EQ-5D) was performed for 24 months. RESULTS: Fifty-five patients (92%) (36 female, 19 male) had a complete follow-up. There were no statistically significant differences in demographic, peri- or intraoperative data between groups A and B. ODI, VAS and EQ-5D improved significantly (p < 0.001) after surgery without statistically significant differences between the two groups. Overall, 65 operated segments could be evaluated for fusion (group A: 29 segments, group B: 36 segments, p = 0.6). Osseous integration of the cage surface improved significantly (p < 0.001) in both groups between 6 and 12 months after surgery. At 12-month follow-up, neither radiolucency nor signs of instability or dislocation were noted. Fusion was present in CT scans as follows: (a) bone growth through cage pores (A: 100%, B: 100%); (b) bone growth outside the cages (A: 48%, B: 61%; p = 0.3). CONCLUSIONS: PEEK and titanium-coated PEEK cages for PLIF produce equally favourable clinical and radiological results up to 24 months post-surgery. The fusion rate was not different.

Description and Reliability of the AOSpine Sacral Classification System.

BACKGROUND: Several classification systems exist for sacral fractures; however, these systems are primarily descriptive, are not uniformly used, have not been validated, and have not been associated with a treatment algorithm or prognosis. The goal of the present study was to demonstrate the reliability of the AOSpine Sacral Classification System among a group of international spine and trauma surgeons. METHODS: A total of 38 sacral fractures were reviewed independently by 18 surgeons selected from an expert panel of AOSpine and AOTrauma members. Each case was graded by each surgeon on 2 separate occasions, 4 weeks apart. Intrarater reproducibility and interrater agreement were analyzed with use of the kappa statistic (κ) for fracture severity (i.e., A, B, and C) and fracture subtype (e.g., A1, A2, and A3). RESULTS: Seventeen reviewers were included in the final analysis, and a total of 1,292 assessments were performed (646 assessments performed twice). Overall intrarater reproducibility was excellent (κ = 0.83) for fracture severity and substantial (κ = 0.71) for all fracture subtypes. When comparing fracture severity, overall interrater agreement was substantial (κ = 0.75), with the highest agreement for type-A fractures (κ = 0.95) and the lowest for type-C fractures (κ = 0.70). Overall interrater agreement was moderate (κ = 0.58) when comparing fracture subtype, with the highest agreement seen for A2 subtypes (κ = 0.81) and the lowest for A1 subtypes (κ = 0.20). CONCLUSIONS: To our knowledge, the present study is the first to describe the reliability of the AOSpine Sacral Classification System among a worldwide group of expert spine and trauma surgeons, with substantial to excellent intrarater reproducibility and moderate to substantial interrater agreement for the majority of fracture subtypes. These results suggest that this classification system can be reliably applied to sacral injuries, providing an important step toward standardization of treatment.

[Guideline-conform diagnostics for injuries of the subaxial cervical spine]. / Leitliniengerechte Diagnostik bei Verletzungen der subaxialen Halswirbelsäule.

Injuries to the subaxial cervical spine are increasing and have a high risk for neurological injury in comparison to the thoracic and lumbar spine. The current treatment recommendations according to the recommendations of the section spine of the German Society for Orthopaedics and Trauma (DGOU) and the S1 guidelines of the German Society for Trauma Surgery are summarized in this article. High-energy as well as low-energy trauma can cause a significant injury to the cervical spine. If there is a suspicion of a cervical spine injury, a tomographic imaging modality (CT/MRI) is the procedure of choice. Injuries should be classified according to the AOSpine classification for subaxial injuries. Based on this classification, a decision on a conservative or operative treatment regimen as well as individual details of the treatment can be made.

[Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion]. / Minimal-invasive transforaminale lumbale interkorporelle Fusion.

OBJECTIVE: Instrumented fusion of lumbar motion segments using a minimally invasive technique. INDICATIONS: Degenerative disc disease, segmental degeneration, degenerative spondylolisthesis, isthmic spondylolisthesis, pseudarthrosis, other spinal lumbar instabilities, disc prolapse, revision for failed back surgery syndrome, unilateral neuroforaminal stenosis, facet joint arthrosis. CONTRAINDICATIONS: High-grade spondylolisthesis (Meyerding grades III/IV, spondyloptosis), bilateral nerve root compression, vertebral fractures, tumors, high-grade spinal instabilities, primary spinal deformities, multilevel pathologies. SURGICAL TECHNIQUE: Ipsilateral minimally invasive approach using a self-retaining tubular retractor system, partial or complete facetectomy, insertion of pedicle screws, transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) cage insertion preserving nerve roots, fusion, contralateral insertion of pedicle screws using a minimally invasive or percutaneous technique. POSTOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT: Mobilization with physiotherapy, followed by standing plain x­ray examinations, clinical and radiological follow-up at 6-12 weeks and 1 year postoperatively. RESULTS: Fusion rates >90%, comparable to open TLIF. Complication rates lower than open TLIF. Shorter radiation exposure during surgery, lower blood loss. Less surgical trauma leads to shorter hospitalization time and earlier return-to-work. Oswestry Disability index (ODI) scores and visual analog scale (VAS) scores significantly decreased.

[Diagnostics and treatment of thoracic and lumbar spine trauma in pediatric patients : Recommendations from the Pediatric Spinal Trauma Group]. / Diagnostik und Therapie von Verletzungen der Brust- und Lendenwirbelsäule im Kindesalter : Empfehlungen der AG Wirbelsäulentrauma im Kindesalter.

BACKGROUND: Spinal injuries in pediatric patients are overall very rare. Current reference studies including large patient numbers that enable the formulation of evidence-based recommendations on diagnostics and treatment of these injuries do not exist. OBJECTIVE: The aim of the current study was to formulate recommendations on the diagnostics and treatment for injuries of the thoracic and lumbar spine in pediatric patients. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Firstly, a search for primary and secondary literature on the topic of diagnostics and treatment of spinal injuries in children was carried out. From this, a literature database was established and maintained. Secondly, within the framework of 9 meetings in the time period from April 2017 to December 2019 the members of the Pediatric Spinal Trauma Group of the Spine Section of the German Society for Orthopaedics and Trauma (DGOU) documented recommendations on diagnostics and treatment of injuries of the thoracic and lumbar spine in pediatric patients by a consensus process. RESULTS: Recommendations on the diagnostics and treatment of injuries of the thoracic and lumbar spine could be given for 3 age groups (age group I: 0-6 years; age group II: 7-9 years; age group III: 10-16 years). Diagnostic and therapeutic principles known from adult patients suffering from injuries to the thoracic or lumbar spine cannot easily be transferred to pediatric patients. CONCLUSION: Spinal injuries in childhood are rare and should be treated in specialized spine centers. Pediatric patients with a stable cardiopulmonary status should undergo magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) if a spinal trauma is suspected. The basic principles of the treatment of spinal trauma in children is the restoration of spinal stability and correct anatomical parameters as well as the protection of all neural structures. The potential for correction and regeneration of the individual spinal sections depending on the age of the patient must be considered for deciding between operative vs. conservative treatment. Whenever operative treatment is needed, it should be performed by minimally invasive techniques as a sole instrumentation without spondylodesis. An early removal of the screw-rod-system should be performed.