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.

Paediatric spine injuries in the thoracic and lumbar spine-results of the German multicentre CHILDSPINE study.

BACKGROUND: Paediatric thoracolumbar spine injuries are rare, and meaningful epidemiological data are lacking. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to provide epidemiological data for paediatric patients with thoracolumbar spinal trauma in Germany with a view to enhancing future decision-making in relation to the diagnostics and treatment of these patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective multicentre study includes patients up to 16 years of age who were suffering from thoracolumbar spine injuries who had been treated in six German spine centres between 01/2010 and 12/2016. The clinical database was analysed for patient-specific data, trauma mechanisms, level of injury, and any accompanying injuries. Diagnostic imaging and subsequent treatment were investigated. Patients were divided into three age groups for further evaluation: age group I (0-6 years), age group II (7-9 years) and age group III (10-16 years). RESULTS: A total of 153 children with 345 thoracolumbar spine injuries met the inclusion criteria. The mean age at the time of hospitalization due to the injury was 12.9 (± 3.1) years. Boys were likelier to be affected (1:1.3). In all age groups, falls and traffic accidents were the most common causes of thoracolumbar spine injuries. A total of 95 patients (62.1%) were treated conservatively, while 58 (37.9%) of the children underwent surgical treatment. Minimally invasive procedures were the most chosen procedures. Older children and adolescents were likelier to suffer from higher-grade injuries according to the AOSpine classification. The thoracolumbar junction (T11 to L2) was the most affected level along the thoracolumbar spine (n = 90). Neurological deficits were rarely seen in all age groups. Besides extremity injuries (n = 52, 30.2%), head injuries represented the most common accompanying injuries (n = 53, 30.8%). Regarding spinal injuries, most of the patients showed no evidence of complications during their hospital stay (96.7%). CONCLUSIONS: The thoracolumbar junction was more frequently affected in older children and adolescents. The majority of thoracolumbar spinal column injuries were treated conservatively. Nevertheless, 37.9% of hospitalized children had to be treated surgically, and there was an acceptable complication rate for the surgeries that were performed.

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.

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.

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.

An international validation of the AO spine subaxial injury classification system.

PURPOSE: To validate the AO Spine Subaxial Injury Classification System with participants of various experience levels, subspecialties, and geographic regions. METHODS: A live webinar was organized in 2020 for validation of the AO Spine Subaxial Injury Classification System. The validation consisted of 41 unique subaxial cervical spine injuries with associated computed tomography scans and key images. Intraobserver reproducibility and interobserver reliability of the AO Spine Subaxial Injury Classification System were calculated for injury morphology, injury subtype, and facet injury. The reliability and reproducibility of the classification system were categorized as slight (ƙ = 0-0.20), fair (ƙ = 0.21-0.40), moderate (ƙ = 0.41-0.60), substantial (ƙ = 0.61-0.80), or excellent (ƙ = > 0.80) as determined by the Landis and Koch classification. RESULTS: A total of 203 AO Spine members participated in the AO Spine Subaxial Injury Classification System validation. The percent of participants accurately classifying each injury was over 90% for fracture morphology and fracture subtype on both assessments. The interobserver reliability for fracture morphology was excellent (ƙ = 0.87), while fracture subtype (ƙ = 0.80) and facet injury were substantial (ƙ = 0.74). The intraobserver reproducibility for fracture morphology and subtype were excellent (ƙ = 0.85, 0.88, respectively), while reproducibility for facet injuries was substantial (ƙ = 0.76). CONCLUSION: The AO Spine Subaxial Injury Classification System demonstrated excellent interobserver reliability and intraobserver reproducibility for fracture morphology, substantial reliability and reproducibility for facet injuries, and excellent reproducibility with substantial reliability for injury subtype.

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.

The Influence of Regional Differences on the Reliability of the AO Spine Sacral Injury Classification System.

STUDY DESIGN: Global cross-sectional survey. OBJECTIVE: To explore the influence of geographic region on the AO Spine Sacral Classification System. METHODS: A total of 158 AO Spine and AO Trauma members from 6 AO world regions (Africa, Asia, Europe, Latin and South America, Middle East, and North America) participated in a live webinar to assess the reliability, reproducibility, and accuracy of classifying sacral fractures using the AO Spine Sacral Classification System. This evaluation was performed with 26 cases presented in randomized order on 2 occasions 3 weeks apart. RESULTS: A total of 8320 case assessments were performed. All regions demonstrated excellent intraobserver reproducibility for fracture morphology. Respondents from Europe (k = .80) and North America (k = .86) achieved excellent reproducibility for fracture subtype while respondents from all other regions displayed substantial reproducibility. All regions demonstrated at minimum substantial interobserver reliability for fracture morphology and subtype. Each region demonstrated >90% accuracy in classifying fracture morphology and >80% accuracy in fracture subtype compared to the gold standard. Type C morphology (p2 = .0000) and A3 (p1 = .0280), B2 (p1 = .0015), C0 (p1 = .0085), and C2 (p1 =.0016, p2 =.0000) subtypes showed significant regional disparity in classification accuracy (p1 = Assessment 1, p2 = Assessment 2). Respondents from Asia (except in A3) and the combined group of North, Latin, and South America had accuracy percentages below the combined mean, whereas respondents from Europe consistently scored above the mean. CONCLUSIONS: In a global validation study of the AO Spine Sacral Classification System, substantial reliability of both fracture morphology and subtype classification was found across all geographic regions.

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.